Durham E-Theses
Settlement and eld systems in Middleham Manor 1600 - 1850
Cliord, John
How to cite: Cliord, John (1977) Settlement and eld systems in Middleham Manor 1600 - 1850, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10021/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support O ce, Durham University, University O ce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
:v T T L E !,! "3 TT T N :D FIELD
1. n
'! ii N C R
1600 - 1850
rohn Clifford, .J.A.
.1 xhesis oub:uitted for the uegree of kaster of .irts ox
uvrtma uraversxiiy.
July, 1977.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author.
No quotation from it should be published without
his prior written consent and information derived
from it should be acknowledged. Volums 1
. \G kn 0 :?1 e d,^^; e me n t £
Introduct I on
Chs.pt er 1 . The Cultural and Pliysioal Baok/-round
Chapter 2. Ssttleiiient
Chapter 3- O'.vnership and Occupation of the Land
Ghe.nter 4. ?ic3ld G'-stoms and Land-use
Clhariter 5. An Examination of the Township of Laj'ton and Selected
Parma in the T;anor
Jhaoter 6, Conclusions
Volume 2
figures 1 - ho
Tables
Primary Sources
Select Bibliograpliy ;jettlc?i.!ent and D'ield Systems in j^iddlehairi i.anor between 1600 and 18^0.
.ibstract.
This wox'k is concerned with the change,g in settleirient and field systei;;s
of tile 31 shop of burhain's i^icole'tKiiii i anor curin^' the decline of the old
iueijhods of farming and the o;r;ar;^ence o-.' the new betwn-n 1600 and 1850.
jy 1600 the nucleated rural settlei:!cnt padtorn of survivini: villajjes
ana deserted sites had oeen established and forced the basis of the 1050
pattern includinj^ the survivint^ fiddleharii :-anor villages of ,bishop iddclebar/i,
dedgefield and Goriiforth. In nel;jhbouring, non-eccliastical cownsbipsj which
by 1850 were part of the parishes of ^;Gdgefield and nishoo hiddlehaii!, there
were extant Tillages and deserted sites occupied by ijidividual farrus or farm
clusters.
In 1600, the townships of i-idfbLehaia i;a.nor presented a chiajapion landscape
of large opeJi fields, meadows and pastures. Ju:l enclosure in the form of
severalties iind LaiJTias closes had already made inroads irxto lands iield in
cor.Eion. ih'e dispersicii of farrnstall-s froi.; the village tofts had not yet
taken place, ano there w-cre ownership links between the village holdings
and those in the township fields and pastures.
I'Teed froii! the constraints of coinanaal agriculture, the 17th century enclosure
allotinents proved enaurin;;; as alienaole blocks in the land market. They
also affected the 10pO pabbcrn of enclosed i'ari;is wdth close correlation
-ii v/ere Detweci far'm and allotment boiuidaides. kex' agricultural practices slo-/ JO t(
develop with medieval tenures pers.isbing into the 19th century and new crops
and rotations not introduced until a relatively late date,
rn 1850 plot patterns in the villages remained the same with minor sub•
divisions. In iaost cases t;:e fariisstalls then occupied: sites in the fields
while village tofts vrere used for other puryjoses,
Ihe localised and internal contrasts in landscape, fai-mi/ig and territorial
organisation derive froja the facb that the la.nds of i-iddlehami i.anor were held
'in demesne' with tenants answering directly to the Halnnote Court (until 1926), ACK'TO^niaDG-Iilliir'^TS
The fiTiter vvishes to thank the folio ,ving:-
Dr. B. K» Roberts for his guidance and understanding;
the Staff of the Durham University Deoartment of J'alaeography
and Diplomatic, especially Mrs. ^A. Dury, Lliss IvI. I'cCollum and
!'r. J. M. Fev;stor, for help so willin^^ly and courteously
the Principal cjid G-ovornors of PPe Northumberland College of
higher Sducaik .')n;
Kr.i. G. L. Dunn;
his iVife and family for encoura.jement t^nd patience. Introduot ion
In 1850 the three tovmships of Bishop '"iddleham, Gornforth and Sedgefield, lying in South iiast Durham, viore collectively known as Middleham leaner. They formed part of the Bishop of Durham's estate, and came under the jurisdj-ction of the '^'alraote Court.
Historic documents, books, maos and plans belonging to the Ilalmote
Court and the Church Commissioners, relatin,p to this manor, are deposited in the Deoartment of Palaeography/ and Diplomatic in the
University of Durham. Among them are Enclosure Awards for Bishop
Kiddleham (1693) and Sedgefield ( 1636), as .veil as Tithe Awards of
1859 for the three tovmships. The construction of maps from these key sources .vould give an indication, in the first place, of the organisation of the township lands under a systc^m of open-field cultivation and, in the second place, the reorganisation that resulted from the changes that took place in agricultural practices that hfive been termed The Agriculturs-l Revolution. Supplementing these documents are a number of other useful sources, important among v/hich are the Parliamentary Survey of 1647, Bishop Cosin's
Survey of 1661, and a series of Tv/anty-five-inch and Six-inch First
Editions of the Ordnance Survey (cl857), which contain useful annotations made by the Halmote Court clerks concerning ownership of the land and tenure. Tlie general purpose of this work, then, is to use the arimary sources found in the nalmote Court Collection along with the general body of •mo'vledge available, in describing and accounting for changes in settlement and field systems of Middleham
Manor that occurred between 16OO and I85O..
The following, however, are more specific aims which fit into the broad pur003a defined above:
the extent to which the distribution and the forms and patterns of settlement found on the mi,d-l9th century maps can be accounted for
by processes active between 160O and I85O;
to examine land-ov/nership end tenure as factors in the development
of the large estat .s &nd the tonsnted fanna which had aoooareu by
I85O;
to look at field systems at the beginning and end of the period
and suggest a chronology for the chan;;e f-om one to the other. To
compere patterns of land-use In the 1839 Tithe Awards with those
before enclosure;
to make an examination of the freehold township of La,yton in
comparison v/ith the Bishop's townships;
to investigate the establishment and development of a number of
farms in the manorial lands and to look at the use of the land
through an examination of rotation schedules.
Clearly, changes in the "ural landscape and agricultural
organisation of fiddlehum Manor did take place between l60a and 185O but of their nature t-,vo questions 7."ill be asked. First, were they
revolutionary as the term 'Agricultural Revolution' suggests? Second,
7fhat difference did it make to the kanor of lliddleham having the
Bishop as a landlord during a period of agricultural innovation? C H A P T E R ONE
T IT E C U L T U R A L A N D P K Y S I C A L
BAG K G R G U 11 D 1
The Cultural and Physical Background
The History of the development of Durham County is influenced very largely by its unusu;-! legal and strategical position. From
Roman times and earlier the county has been in a border position.
It lay between the Brigentes a*nd the Votadini and later between the
Danes of Yorkshire and the Angles of Northumberland. It was the region that lay to the south of the eastern part of lladrians ';Vall in Roman times and v/as crossed by the main Roman road (Dere Street) on its way from. York to Gorbridge and the 'il'all. A Roman villa, excavated at Old Durham, has the reputation of being the northernmost farming estate of the Roman world. But apart from this and the settlements associated with the military occupation of the county
(Binchester, Lanchester, Ebchester, etc.) little evidence is available of any Roman settlem.ent cattern. Little also is known of the settle• ment in the Dark Ages although medieval chroniclers describe Durham then as thick in woods and soarsa in population.
In 634 A.D., after recovering his kingdom of Northumbria, Oswald sent to lona for Aiden to found a monastery on Lindisfarne where Aiden became bishop. In 685 A.D. Cuthbert had become bishop and by 875 A.D. the monks of Lindisfarne were fleeing from Holy Island in the face of
Danish invasions carrying his sanctified and incorruptible body with them. After seven years of wandering they settled in Chester-le-Street where the Bishop of Chester-le-Street was granted land and jurisdiction between Tyne and V*'ear. Further Danish invasions in 995 A.D. forced the community to flee to Ripon but after only a short stay they returned north and settled at the present site of Durham where the construction of the cathedral vras eventually undertaken. King G-uthred, a converted Danish ruler of Yorkshire, granted to St. Guthbert the lands between Tyne and Tees with 'sac soc and infangthief'. It would seem fi'om the I lis tori a do Sancto Guthberto that there was constant
struggle to retain certain lands in the south east of the county from
Eaaington through Sden to Bliiingham. Lands lying to the north of the
Tees iri the south and east of the county formed the 'yaoentake of
Sadberge and these were purchased by Bishop Pudsey from Richard I.
The whole area of the old county then came under his control and that
of his successors.
These processes established the regalitp' of the Bishop but at
the same time the see was acquiring ownership of xaiid through purchase,
grent and colonisation ani ,0 the proprietry rights of the bishoo were
also being extended.
By the time of the Norraan Conquest the bishop was holding a
single court in which he de;,lt with his judicial business whether it
was connected with his role as a landlord or as a princely ruler.
Until the palatine judiciary began to develoo along the same lines as
the royal judiciary there was no distinction. This large area of
Durham County, known as the Palatinate, ?,'hioh ca.me under the rule of
the Prince Bishops has been referred to as 'The G-reat Franchise' while
those lands over which he exercised the rights of Landlordship have been termed 'The &reat Estate' from which the Bishop obtained his
personal wealth. Initially, the two areas of ovmership were
administered as a single whole but v/ith the passing of time and the
development of other administrative institutions within the Palatinate,
the role of the halmote Gou.rt becaiae the administration of 'The G-reat
Estate' .
Episcopal dalmote Rolls in Durham begin in 1345 and these are the records of the doings of the local tribunals regulating the workings of the bishops' estates. The Ilalmote courts were presided
over by the bishops' stewards or deouties in circuits of the bishoos' lands three times a year. It ims customary to meet in a vi],l around
which other vills were grouped. Arrangements for the venue of the
court do not aooe,- r to have been rigid for it did not necessarily meet at the same place on each circuit. For example, in Bishop
Skirlaw's time (1388-1405) the court of the Kiddleham Group was sometimes held at Middleham and sometimes at Sedgefield.
On the second of July, 1647, thirteen jurors of Bishop Middleham delivered to the Bishop of Durham, 'An exact and perfect survey of the ...... Mfjnor of Bishop Hiddlehara and the several townships there• unto belonging (viz) Gorneforth and Sedgefield had made and taken in the months of June and July in the year of our Lord God One Thousand
Six Hundred and Forty seven' As a definition of the lienor of Bishop
Middleham this would seem to be acceptable since both tenants and landlord recognised it as such. The Halmote Court which regulated the economic activity of the three vills also met there on its thrice- yearly circuit of the bishop's manors within the Palatinate.
i^cGording to G-. T. Laosley, however, no use of the word 'manor' to describe the bishops' estates is made until the middle ages is past and he doubts whether we can regard these manors in the same way as manors elsewhere in England. The Halmote Court Rolls in the 1ifth century show the bishops' vills in groups. These arc; mapped on
Figure 1 shov/ing the extent and dispersion of 'The G-reat Estate' in the 14th century. The organisation of the possessions was manorial in that the bishop exercised the r'ights of medieval landlordshio through the Halmote Court with the villagers holding their lands in terms of medieval tenure and farming through rules of iriedieval regulation, Why the vills were grouped in this particular way is a matter for research beyond the scope of this work but the grouping of the Middleham vills seems to present little problem since they vjere already a 'great soke' in the 10th century when Bishop Cutheard bought for St. Guthbert 'Sedgefleld and fill belonging to it'. The contiguous nature of the vills enable it to be seen as a single estate and so is recognised in later centuries as a manor.^
To Lapsley, groupings aippoar to have been only an administrative convenience for in the I4th century the court appears to have dealt with vills. This was certainly so at the beginning of the 17th century. lialmote Court affairs of the Manor of Bishop Middleham at this time and henceforward are recosded and organised on the basis of the three vills of Sedgefield, Bishop llldilleham and Gornforth separately, although they are found grouoed find referred to as the manor of Bishop Middlehaa. In their survey of l647, the jurors of
Bishop Hiddleham stated, 'vVe present that there is two water come milnes belonging to the Lord of this Manor, the one in Sedgefield in the no£ session of Richard i-righto. ...;.'e uresent that the said milne is in great decay and that the copyholders and leaseholders of
Sedgefield Township ought to reoair the same. And that the several copyholders and leaseholders of Sedgefield are tyde to grind at the aforesaid milne.' Clearly, to Bishop Middleham jurors the responsi• bility was the townships and not collectively manorial.
In the medieval period the BishoTos of Durham claimed the wea,lth from the Great Estate as heirs of St. Guthbert ?/hereas their political oower was bestowed upon them by the Norman Conquerors to ensure a bulwark in the north against invasions by the Scots. The establish• ment of monarchical absolutism by the Tudors brought about great changes but although the wealth and political pov;er of the Church was kerbed the Bishops of Durham suffereu -'olatively slightly. The
Great Estate -.vas little affected and his regal power was restricted, for example, by the removal of his criminal jurisdiction to the crovvn in 1536. As far as territorial organisation is concerned, the
Elizabethan Poor Law Act of 1601 was probably of greater significance
for it established the ecclesiastical parish as a unit of civil
admin i s t r at i on.
Christian missionary zeal and medieval agricultural orosperity
had resulted in the construction and staffing of many substantial
stone churches in some but not all of the villages in the Palatinate.
These religious 'central places' offered the services of the church
to people over large areas outside the tovmships in which they were
situated. Hence villages possessing churches established links with
adjacent vi-llages and hamlets having no churches. The jurisdiction
of the village church would, therefore, extend over more than one
tcwnshi.p. The resulting network of parishes, whose boundaries seem
to be based on those of the constituent tovmships, ?/as consolidated
by the use the Elizabethans made of this structure to carry out their
social policies.
B3." the beginning of the I9th century the sattern of parish
bounda:ries in Durham were those indicated in Figure 2. At that time
the Parish of Sedgefield consisted of the townships of Sedgefield,
Bradbury and the Isle, Mordon, Foxton and Shotton, Butterwick and
Oldacres, Fishburn and Embleton. The Parish of Bishop Middlehara held
the townships of Bishop Middleham, Cornforth, Mainsforth, Thrislington
and G-c:rraond3way ( extra parochial) . The resulting patchwork of town•
ships in these narishes is mapped in Figure 3 and their tcreage and
popul£v'Gions in the first five decades of the I9th century are given
in Table 1:1.
These additional townships were manors or estates of considerable
antiquity. They were held by intli.viduals, were not governed by the
Halmote Court, did not form part of the G-reat Estate and, therefore. did not form part of Middleham Manor. Nor did two other manors which,
by 1850, had been absorbed into the township of Sedgefield. These
y>'ere the Layton Estate lying in the south east of the township, and
the Hardwick Estate lying to the west of the village.
Tlie pattern of nucleated settlement within the township and parish
boundaries formed part of the relatively dense pattern of nucleated
rural settlement present in the southern and eastern parts of Durham
in 1820. B. K. Roberts uoints out that, 'throughout the whole of
south-t;astern Durham, villages and hamlets occurred in a remarkably
uniform distribution for when the total is considered, including the
deserted settlements, nucleations seem to occur at intervals of
between one and a half and tv.'o miles' . This is sho/m cleijlp' on his
map, which was based on G. Greenwell's map of the County Palatine of
Dur iara (cl020), and is refji-oduced in Figure 4. He comments on the
marked contrast that existed between the north and west on the one
hand, snd the south and east on the other., and suggests that perhaps
the pattern has emerged in response to zonal distribution of resources.'"''
The zone of soarse nucleation in the north and west offeved a
very limited range of possibilities to the arable agriculturalist.
The high Pennine region (Fi-g. 5.) with an altitude of over 350 metres
presents a, landscape of oeat moorland covered v/ith heather and bracken
and is devoid of settlement for its riches have lain in the pasturage
it offered and in the lead, millstone grit and limestone concealed
beneath its shallow, moorish soils. Only in the deep valleys of the
Tees, h'ear and Der'went 'were found nucleated settlements.
In the foothill area of the Pennines, v\?liich lies further east, the eastward flowing rivers have dissected the Coal Measures producing
a landscape of sandstone scarps and plateaux separated by wide valleys.
If this area was not attractive in terms of agricultural opportunity. it vms at least accessible from the lowlands to the east. Here the
pattern of settlement is less controlled by the valleys and appears
more scattered, although it is still relatively sparse. The wider-
bottoraed and sometimes steep-sided valleys have been colonised by
such settlements as Lanchester but nucleation has oscurred along the
interfluves where many settlements aopeared between the Boldon
Book (1183) and Hatfield ( 13S2) surveys. Some of them bear the
Dlace-name ending 'side' or 'set' indicative of a transhuraauice
settlement becoming permanent, for exa.mpls, Holraside and ITollingside.
These interfluves are relatively free of drift with a thin soil cover,
and at altitudes of between 180 metres and 350 metres offered only
marginal opportunity to the cultivator. Indeed, it wa.s not until
1773J for example, that some 15j000 acres of the v/aste known as
Lanchester Fell was enclosed.
It is the zone of the East Durham Plateau find the Tees Lowland
in the southern and eastern part of the county that presents the
pattern of closely-spaced nucleated rural settlement. The Magnesian
Limestone scarp, which forms the north-western boundary of this zone,
has been much-dissected by streams flov/ing off it to join the U'ear
to the north-v/est. Nowhere is it higher than 23O metres and its
altitude is fairly uniform between 180 metres and 200 metres. To the south and east the Magnesian Limestone surface dips gently to
disaopear beneath the Triassic secLimentaries of the Tees Lowlands
and to form cliffs some 15 metres high at the coast. Drift cover on the plateau is thin in contrast to glacial deposits of considerable thickness in the Tees Lowlands to the south. Here all the land is below 130 metres and the landscape is one of gently rolling topograohy typical of lowland glacial deposition. There are occasional areas of post-glacial lacustrine deposits such as Bradbury and Hordon Carrs (Fig. 6.) which are ill-drained areas of flat land where deoosits of
peat 15 metres t ick are found. Above 35 metres streams flow in
incised valleys but these ooen out into the estuarine lands where
topography becomes flat and drainage v erv poor. There are deposits
of boulder-clay up to 35 metres thick which in places are overlain
by sands, silts and gravels.
K. Smith uses the terra 'Durham's climatic bleakness' in summing
up the climate of the county. The major climatic gradient is in a
west-east direct i.on in which the mean annual precipitation decreases
from over 2O3O mm at Moor House to less than 635 mm at Sunuerland,
and where in August, the mean monthly soil temperature at 3O cms depth
increases from 1 .5 degrees C. at Moor House to 15.3 degrees C. at
Durham. Taking the threshold of 6.1 degrees C. to determine the
length of the growing season, in the south east lovvlands it lasts
some seven months from mid-April to mid-November, v/hile at altitudes
of 500 metres in the west this has fallen to five and a half months.
Along the Magnesian Limestone scarp, where the surface is drift-
free, limestone soils have jeveloped, the friable, m.arly limestone
m'eathering to a greater death than the concretionary limestones and
supoorting a deeper soil. This well-drained ;;)Osition on the scarp
and dip-slope produces a dry, fertile loam, where the limestone soils
are not present, there are usually brown calcareous soils ,.hich vary
in texture from a sandy clay loam to a cla,y loam. Elsewhere, there
are brown earths and where drainage is good these prove to be good
soils. In the Tees-Lowlands the soil tyoes reflect the wide variety of oarent materials 'which include glacial tills, fluvio glacial
deposits, lacustrine sediments, aluvium (riverine and marine) and aolian sands.
In summary, then, this south eastern part of the county is a land of gently sloping and undulating topography, h;;ving a south-
v^asterly aspect, with a grovring season of seven months cn an annual
rainfall of less than 7OO nmi. Such an area with its dry fertile
loams of the dip-slope, its fei'tile loams of the Tees and Skerne valleys, and its patches of sands, silts and gravels on the boulder- olaj^s, must have offered suitable oouortunities to settlers seeking agricultural land.
That some settlers had taken the oouortiinities offered is shown as early as 1183 in the Soldon Book survey of Bishop Pudsey. At that time the southern and eastern parts of the county had developed as a relatj.vely prosperous region settled by servile cultivators. By cont;'ast, the north-western zone vjas sparsely settled with development limited to a few favoured places such as V/olsingham and Stanhope in the "'ear Valley where emp?iasis lay on the hunting preserves of the bishop and pastoral pursuits, rather than arable farming.
At, the beginning of the 17th century the landscape of the south and east v/as dominated by large open fields vjorked in common. By the end of that century the lantisc;ape had changed to that of a regular pattern of enclosed fields and scattered farmsteads for in this area the climax of the enclosure movement occurred between the years 1625 nnd l675, v?hen the strios and furlongs and scattered holdings in the large open fields were replaced. In contrast, the northern and western areas remained a zone which was largely oastoral in nature. Townflelds occupied only a small part of the available land. The rest was divided among individual farmholdings with Icirge acreages of unenclosed, unimproved land which had to wait until the end of the l8th and beginning of the I9th centuries when the demands for grain provided the impetus for their enclosure by parliamentary act. Tha Manor of Bishop Midfileham lies in an almost central position in south eastern Durham (i?ig. 2.) .vith the northern Cornforth vill
(Pig. 6.) athvv'art the Magnesian Limestone scarp, Bishop Middleham occupying the dip-slope and the vill of Sedgefield lying on the glacial deposits of the Tses Loslands. It is at its highest on the scarp at some 15O metres and at its lovrest in the southern part of the Sedgefield land:3 at cSO metres. The gradual descent from the scarp to the lowlands, however, is broken by the Upper Skerne river which flows through the southern ps.rt of MidcHeham vill in an east- west d;_rection before turning south, to the west of Sedgefield, to join the River Tees. The course of this river as it flows through the vill is marked by a deep valley, but more than this, under a previous drainage regime other channels hsve been cut some 2 kms north of the present stream which have created a number of limestone knolls th'it form significant pl\jslcEl features. These are illustrated in
Figure 6 -where the relief of the manor is shown. The village of
Bishop I.Iiddleham lies at about 100 metres and straddles one of these channels. Cornforth occupies a sloping site on the northward-facing scarp at c115 metres, while Sedgefield is also situated at that altitude but occupies a site on the glacial Tees lowlands.
These physical and cultural environmental factors are important in a study of Middleham Manor for they show the processes that had been operative in producing the landscape features present in 16OO.
Changes v/hich took place between then and 1350 were not free from the influences of the forces that had been at work in earlier times and nowhere are they more apparent than in sn examination of settlement distribution and form. Chapter 1
References
• Zi<:ili2?lliiJ_isjKjr^___o^ of Durham (j 90^ -
2. (T. T. LAPSLSy, • Notes on the Boldon Book.' YicDoria ::istory of
the County of Durham (l90!3 - 1928)_
5. Durham University, Department of Palaeography -•••ad Diplomatic,
Halmote Court Reords, "50, Parliamentary Surveys of Panors of
County Durham, July 1^47 k. B. P. RCBUitTS, 'Rural Settlement.' j)ur?;iam County and City with
1 eesside J. C. Dewdney (lid.), Duriiam 1970
5. K. SMITP, 'Climate ana ./eatherl' Durham County and City with Tees side
J. C. Dewdney ^Pd.), Durham 1970 C H /. F T E R TWO
SETTLE M E N T 1 2
SBTTLSirSIIT
Middleham Manor - An Overview of Settlement Pattern and Forms
In his study of the green-villages of Durham, H. Thorpe considers
site factors and observes that few green-villages are sited directly
on boulder-clay, the reason for this being that at the time of
establishment such area,3 would be heavily forested. V/here they are
sited on boulder-clay it is usually veiy thin. Cn the other hand,
many are sited on Magnesian Limestone, Coal Measure Sandstone and
Millstone G-rit rising above the drift cover. This he sees as well-
drained ground with a vegetational cover that could be cleared
relatively easily. Other sites are found in areas of lighter soils
where, for example, sands and gravels occur in the boulder-clays.
An exaiTiiretion of the area of Middleham Manor supports his findings
(Fig. 7.)- Both Cornforth and Bishop ?Iiddleham stand on Magnesian
Limestone, while Sedgefield occupies a patch of sands and gravels.
Of the associated settlements (Fig. 3«) Mainsforth, Bradbury and
Mordon lie on sands and gravels, and Fishburn is situated on
Magnesian Limestone. But other sites by 1820 were occupied by no
more than individual farms in the cases of Layton and Swainston,
by small clusters of two oi' three farms as at Foxton, Shotton,
Butterw.Lok, Embleton and G-armondsway, or halls as at Thrislington
and Oldacres. In all cases, with the exception of Oldacres, these
are deserted village sites and none of them lie on the lighter soils
but cn heavier boulder-clays, a fact which may have been of importance
in a decision to abandon.
By the beginning of the I9th century the townships bore the names
of villages or hamlets vj-hich existed then, or had existed in the past.
Vrhere tvo settlements v;ere present, then the tovmship bore a double
name, for example, Foxton and Shotton, and BuLterwick and Oldacres. 13
Although from, medieval documents a name link between the medieval manor and the l9th century township can be established, to establish the presence of a nucleated settlement at the earlier date is more difficult. In medieval sources knowledge of the spatial organisation of the manor is assumed and only rarely is reference made to the existence of a village and its form. To prove the existence of villages at this time requires much detailed research into medieval documents. To show their existence at the beginning of the 17th century, bov/ever, enables the use of extant maps.
The earliest map of the county is 'Y Bishoprick' (1569) and the settlements marked on this mao are shown on Table 2: 1 . This .vas quicklj.' followed by Saxton's map of 1576. On thisbeaitifully prouuced map the cartographer locates and makes a simple classification of the settlements.
Villages with Church
Sedgefield, Middlehara and Embleton (Elmedon)
Villages without Church
Cornforth, G-armcndsway, Thrislington, Mainsforth, Bradbury,
Mordon, Foxton, Shotton, Old Akers, Butterwick, Pishburn
Halls ( a castej..lL:ted sym.bcl)
The Isle, La.yton, Jlardwick.
Kc'rdon, on his mb/p of 1695, also makes a kind of classification as follows:
Villages (pictorial symbol)
Mfinsforth, Ccrnforth, Middleham, Sedgefield, Poxton, Shotton,
Butterwick, Cldacres, Elmedon
Settlements ( marked by a small _circle)
Thrislington, Mordon, Bredbury, Layton, G-armondsway 14
Hall (t?ie sym.bol of a house)
The Isle, Hardwick
Christopher Maire's Map of the County Palatine of Durham (1711)
is more detailed in its classification.
Market Town
Sedgefield
Parishes
Middlehara and Sedgefield
Villages
Fishburn, Bradbury, Mordon, Foxton, Elmedon, Cornforth, Swainston
Hamlets
Shotton, Butterwick
G-entlemen's Houses
Mainsforth, The Isle, Oldacres, Layton
Table 2:1 shows the a;,5peerance of these settlements in a
chronological sequence of these and other historic maps, the distrib•
utions are mapped in Figure 8 and reproduction is made of the relevant
parts of two of these maps in Figure 9.
From these maps it can be seen that not too much weight can be
placed on them as evidence of the kinds of settlements that existed
as early as the end of the 16th century, for nothing is known of the
criteria used by the cartographers in distinguishing between settle•
ments, nor if they even had first hand knowledge of them. Probably
the social status of the person living in the settlement was of more significance than the size of it. However, if the locational pattern
of the settlements is compared with that on early 19th century
(Fig. 3o) maps, it would apnear that in the l6th century, for example,
Saxton was looking at a distribution ths.t .-/as similar to that seen by Greenwell some two hundred end fifty years later. Prom as early
as 1569, then, it is possible to establish the presence of the pattern
of nucleated settlement associated with the manor through the persistence
of their names and their location on the early historic maps of the
county. hat these mans do not show vi-ith any degree of accuracy is
any change of form that has taken place during this period for the
information given by the cartographers is too limdted to allow us to
distinguish with confidence between villages, hamlets, halls and farms.
Another limitation of the maos is the absence of boundaries other
than the inclusion of 'fenced' pa-rklands which appear more symbolic
than real. Tovmship boundaries aroe&r on Creenwell's map of 1820,
but are less precise th-an those aiipearing on the I839 Tithe raa/ps and
the first editions of the six inch and twenty-five inch Ordnance survey
maos of 1857. It is fromi an examination of these maps from the first
half of the l9th century thst the boundaries on the maps of the
townships have been based. It is argued that in this zone of relatively
dense and early settlement, all available land would have been occucied
by the vills and boundaries fixed at an early date. By 1647, there
v;as no waste in Bisho;:: Piddll eham. The East Moor and South Moor of
Sodgefield were enclosed in 1639, as were the fields and moors of
Cornforth in 1628. Boundaries would be a fact on the ground and in the mclnds of villagers long before cartographers recorded them. In
the Bishop Middleham enclosure award lands bordering the vill are referred to as 'Cornforth Lands' or 'Mainsforth G-round', etc. The maintaining of the boundaries between the vills v/ould be of great concern to the villaigers for they had a much more direct relationship with the land than had the Bishop. They v^orked the lands and their livelihood depended upon them. The Bishop'3 itinerant stewards would rely on local knowled.ge of boundaries, and although their verbal IS
descrintions are sometimes ambiguous, in documentsry sources, never-
the-less, to the contem.porery farmer there would be no confusion.
Vill or township boundaries would tend to persist in this rural
agricultural area at least until the spread of coalmining and the
increase in population that came in the I9th centurj^, and indeed it
is not until the second half of the 19th century that serious adjust•
ments occurred.
In the absence of cartographic evidence it would seem reasonable
to use such an argument to allow the township boundaries of the early
19th century to be regarded as the same as those at the beginning of
the 17th century. There is in existence, however, 'The platt of
the Lodship of Layton in the county of durham measured- by instruments 1 5
in the 14th daye of apryll 1608 by Robert Farrow th'elder' . A copy
of this map is shown in Figure 10 alongside a map of the Layton
Township fields in l859' The interesting fact is that the plan shows
itself to be remarkably "ccurate when compared with the Da ter map.
The irregular indentfitions of the township boundary are easily
compared and the correlation is seen to be very high. This is not
only praise for the skills of this early cartographer, but would also
seem tc support the thesis tliat the towns?iip bounda.ries would tend
to persist and that the I6OO boundaries .vould ;orobably be the same
as those in I85O.
Figure 3 shows tht'.t by 1820 there were four categories of rural
settlement that had evolved on the oattem that was already visible in Saxton'3 i576 map. First, there were the villages that belonged to the Manor of Bishop Middleham, namely Bishop Middleham, Gornforth end Sedgefield. These were the largei settlements and of these
Sedgefield was pre-eminent. Hot only does a comparison of the plans
(Figs. 12-50.) she?, this cj.eariy, but reference to the population table (Table will show that the population of Sedgefield township was consistently m.ore than double that of the other two in the first half of the I9th century. (The tovmship of Cornforth saw an increase in population from 553 1B31 to 1,040 in I851, but this was due to the establishment of the coal-mining settlement of Pest Cornforth.)
Secondly, there were three settlements that are called hamlets for they contain ivithin their plan form cottage elements and farm• steads. Thej/' are Bradbury, Pishburn and Mordon and, as can be seen from the plans (Figs. 15, 16, 170 a^'e smaller in size with township populations in l821 of 152, 192 and 124 respectively.
Thirdly, there were seven settlements that can be described as fariri clusters for t;hey consist of groups of two or three farms with no apparent cottage element in their plan (pigs. 18-2 5.). These were
Mainsforth, Butterwick, Emhleton, Swainston, Poxton, Shotton and
G-armonds'way. The l821 population figures for these tov/nships 'were small vrith Mainsforth having persons, Butterwick 54, Smbleton
(including Swainston) 102, Poxton and Shor.ton 63, and G-armondsway 35.
Fourthly, there were the sites which carried the names of town• ships and were occupied by halls or single farmsteads such as Oldacres,
Thrislington, Layton, The Isle and liardwick (Figs. 24, 25.).
The plans of these settlements are taken from the first editions of the twenty-five inch Ordnance Survey maps (1857) and in some cases the Tithe m.aps (1839) or earlier maps where available. The increase in population between 1821 and the dates of these maps is considered insufficient to alter the basis on which the classification has been made. Farms can be recognised by the angular arrangement of buildings often enclosing' a stock;/ard and f recmently by the presence of a circular-shaped orotrusion from one of the buildings. This yvas a gin-gan, a circular'-shaped building in which horses travelled round and round operating a threshing and grinding mechanism. By the beginning of the 19th century this had replaced the communal corn
mill of the sort that had caused so much concern to the Middleham
Jurors in ^6k7. The cottage elements are shown as small plots
occupied by buildings and usually possessing a aepai'ate olot number
on the t'wenty-five inch Ordnance Survey mai^s.
IL is evident when examining the olans of Cornforth, Bishop
Middleham, Sedgefield, Mordon and Fishburn that the -e is regularity in their form which is suggestive of them having b^en planned and laid out in this fashion. These planned villages have long been recogn:'Lsed by geographers and have been a subject of research by a number of them. For example, H. Thorpe uses the shape of the green as the basis of a cl&.ssification and recognised a) broad-green ville^ges, b) street-green villages and o) those villages with greens of an indeterminate shape. Under this cla.ssification, Cornforth and
Sedgefield are broad-green types and Bishop Middleham, Fishburn and
Mordon are stree^t-green types. He refers to the concentration of these planned green-villages in the south-eastern part of Durham as being due to the influence of lowland cultures.
The conclusions he came to mere that the green villages of Durham developed from defensive enclosures on naturally open sites which v/ould be small in extent in formerly forested counti'y and that from place-na.me evidence, the sites were occupied in early anglian times.
There is no evidence, however, that they had the planned element of the green.''
B. K. Robert's GlassifioatIon of the Nucleated Rural Settlement in Durham County cl820, is much more comprehensive than Thorpe's selective treatm.ent. Ee places Thorpe's main criterion, the green, in a secondary position. To him, the farms and dwellings and building to be the imoortant elements in a settlement, there- seem. o'i--^'*"" ,es these and their apparent arrangement in rows as a basis
fo^'-lassification. Ke recognises, for example, one row and two
?^lements with and without greens, and multiple row settlements
'lygonal greens. The map of settlements so classified is
laced in Figure 4, tmd in Figure 11 the distribution of nucleated
lerient in the MiddleliEin area is produced using the same classifi-
2 ,ion. It is clear that the^-e are irregular as well as regular forma present, but it is the regular forms that attract the interest, not only for the presence of the green and the rows, but also the apparent similarity of widths of building; plots ana the uniformity of their length in some of the regular settlements indicating a meticulous degree of planning with plots presumably laid out with a measuring rod. Phen this planned layout was undertaken is a matter of continuing reseai'ch, but there is a growing bod,y of evidence in favour of dates of orj.gin during the medieval period. June A. Sheppard^^ suggests that the majority of regular villages in Yorkshire are likely to have originaited during the 11th and 12th centaries, and t,'iat this accords with -:iie findings of Roberts'"" in his vrork on Durham villages. The
Haxrying of the North and the layin.:; waste of large numbers of manors
by 'Pilliami I is seen as tlie event that provided some of the need to
replace villages by new planned settlements.
In Middlehaim Manor and the associated vills, the five settlements
already mentioned shovj strong evidence of row development. They have
a regularity of layout that places them in the category of planned
settlements which, if the suggested chronology is accepted, inclLcates
that their demarcation took pla.ce in the 11th or 12th centuries. This
vrould raeam that the plot oattern at 1850 was even an inherited form 20
in 1600.
Other than these settlements, there are two that Roberts
classifies as irregular clusters being Mainsforth and Bradbury.
Whether these forms, pre-date, post-date, or are contemporary with
the planned settlements is unknown.
The remaining settlements, Thrislington, Foxton, Shotton, Layton,
Buttervfick, Hmbletcn, Swrinstcn and the Isle are classified B,S
deserted villages with form unknown. Of their dates of depopulation
there is no record, and there is insufficient evidence from plans or
on the ground as to whether they had the regular layout of planned
settlenents or not.
The village and hamlet settlements raanped in Figure 3 coincide
witli th^e planned settlements in Roberts' classification and would,
therefore, seem to huve an ancestry datin;; back to the medieval period.
Bradbury was the only excsotion, but examination of the pltm (Fig. I6.)
shows evidence of ron developi:.ent on the northern side of the village
street with tofts of a regular length. There is even a suggestion
that toft widths are similar in size if the sub-divisions are ignored.
•Vith the exceptions of Mainsforth, ilardwick and Old Acres, the settle•
ments thrit are shown as farm clusters, individual L rge farms, or
halls, coincide with the deserted villrge sites. Of the previous
form nothing is known, but the early 19th century settlements v/ould seem, to be recognisable forms that developed on these sites as a result of the post-medi.eval agricultural changes. The three exceptions
all possess halls but Ifeinsforth hall also forms part of a farm cluster which sets it apart fromi the others. It also is an exception among the farm clusters for it has s hall and also because it does not occupy a deserted village site.
There are, clearly, features of the planned villages of the 21
Middleham Mfinor that make them unique, 'bu'z before mciking individual analyses of the form.s of these three settlements it woula be well to indicate the general framework within which such an examination is being niade, for theae are features which also make them typical of nucleated rural settlements vvithin the county at the beginning of the I9th. century.
Most of the buildings that ai'e found in Durham vill-j ges are
post-1700 in date, with builaings older than 16OO being pa.rticalarly
rare. Field evidence from the Middleham villages would auoport this
assertion for, with the exception of the chui-ches, no building, with
any d.egree of certainty, o^.r be dated before I7OO. The wall that
surrounds the park in Bishop Piddlaham is probably pre-l600, for the
park was reaorted a,s walled in l647.
Prom an examination of villages and their plans, it can be seen that regular settlements are made up of a number of distinct morpho- logice.l units. The indiviaaal builaings can be arranged in rows, sometimes in a regular fashion vjith an even building line and with houses or f armisteads abutiai ng each other to form a continuous line of buildings. Alternatively, this building line cam be ooen with gaps between the builaings or it can be uneven. Occasionally the building line may be stepped, which suggests the extension of the row at a later time (see the SedgeficlcJ plan. Figure 12). Ahere two of these rows face each other across a green, tliere is established what
Roberts has called a two-row settlement, and this form, with variationt in individual instances, he sees as the most prevalent form of the planned villages in Durhajii.
The village green is seen as the product of arranging the village thus in rows. The width of the green may vary from no more than the
-width of the road to some hundred or more metres, and in area from 22
about half an acre to four acres. Sometimes the two-row village has the addition of a ' tovm-head row' at the broadest end of the green
(see S3dgefield. Figure 12, and Hordon, Figure 17) which inhibits the extension of the settlement in that direction. Thorpe stressed tw'.; asoects about the functioning of the green. First, although it ws,s Gom.mon land, there were important grazing rights which appeared to belong to those with holdings fronting the green. Secondly, there were controls over the erection of buildings there. Buildings and activities were usually those from which the community benefitted, such as the siriithy, the communal bakehouse, ponds, water pumus and stocks,. Even games were allowed on the green, but only rarely is there evi^ience of the church being built there.
Leading from the green there is fre j-iently a number of roads which are probably the later representatives of the driftways or cattle tracks th: t led to the rough grazing or j.istures. Or aerhaps they were the remains of the former pattern of tracks lef:ding to the demesne, pasture, open fields tuid old enclosures that existed in these lowland townships in the middle ages, lixamples of these roads can be seen emanating from the greens of Cornforth and Sedgefield, and although they are also present in Bishop Hiddleham, they are less obvious because other f;ctors have complicated the road and lane network: there.
The building plots that make up the territorial pattern of the rows are tofts or garths. A cursory o'camino.tion of many plans shows that a m.arked degree of regultrrity exists with tofts appearing to have similar widths and that are sometimes equal in width proportionately.
This is shoym clearly in the plans of the Hiddlehara settlements•
The lengths of the tofts can varr but within the individual villages in this manor they ere remarkably uniform, only deviating where the 23
toft tails are controlled by some physical or cultural feature such
as the drainage channel in Bishop Iliddleham and the lanes in Sedgefield
and Goi-nforth.
These, then, are tb.e general features of nucleated settlements
found i.n Durham County circa 1820. It is aithin the framework
provided by such observations that an examination a;ill be made of the
forms of nucleated settleraenta> vvithin the r/arishes of Bisho.) Middleham
and Sadgefield at cl340.
Settlement Forms:The Evidence
The earliest maps of the settlem.ents in the oarishes are those
on the Tithe maps of 1839 waich were followed in I657 by tlie Ordnance
S'ar^rey First Sditions. One exception is a map of Cornforth, cl32S.
Analysis of the change tha.t had taken place bet»veen I6OO and I85O
is hajnaaered fro:a tha outset through lack of early cartogr.^-.pliic evidence.
In the absence of this it would seem useful to adopt a generic aaproach
using the framework of the general body of knowledge on settlement
development. In some instances, it nas been necessary to go beyond
I6OO to the Medieval Period to account for form, wIP'le in other cases
the method resorted to has been informed conjecture.
^) The Surviving Settlements
Bishop Piddleham
T>'vo main groups of factors have influenced the form of Bishop
Middleham. Triey a re the phj'-siographic fea,tures of the site and
t 'ose resulting from the presence, in the medievail period, of the
Bishop as Lord of the Manor for the effect of t is was more than the inclusion of 'Bishop' in the name of the settlement.
From maa inspection (Pigs. 15, 2-6.) it is apparent that this is a planned village with evidence of the green ma, row develoaraent. 24
Thorpe desoribed it as a strtjet village: of rectangular shape well enclosed with houses.'' Roberts, on the oth.;r hand, recognised it a.3 a .-settlement vrith well-oronounced row development but with an irregular as opposed to regul'-.r form.Both of these descriptions vvould seem to be supported by plan evidence, bufc the IrreguLarity of form becomes very aoparent when making a field study for the striking feature of the village is a steea-sided, flat-bottomed, channel catting through the village in a roughly east to v/ast orien• tation. To the south of the vill;-.ge another drainage channel runs in a south-westerly direction, so isolating a limestone knoll.
Bsoause of this system of drainage channels, t';;; village can be
divided into three distinct parts (Fig. 13.). The first is situated
on the knoll which aas pi-eviously the site of the medieval castle
manor house but at the beginning of the l9"'-h cejitury held the chui'oh,
the CI i FsaLl and the Horao Farm. The second part occupied the limestone
plateau on the northern side of the channel. Here there was a long
north row, the eastern portion of which faced a shorter south row
across a street. The third prtrt was the cottage develooment that had
taken ])lace in the bottom of the channel. This consisted of a short
south row facing the western oart of the north row across the green,
and rovi development along the road connecting the green with the church.
The green itself was the steeply sloping noL-th side of the channel which had been occupied by a few buildings •.••.•here it flattened out in the bottom.
There is evidence that the Bishops of Durham used the manor house betweer. the 12th and I4th centuries. Bis hop .''udsey may have stayed there when the demesne was in his own h.;i.nd.s. Prom 1241 onwards, charters
.and letters -were frequently dated from Bishou Middleham and Robert of
Jioly Island died there in 1283 as did Bishoo Robert Kellaw in I316. 25
But In 13V3 the :':anoi" house v/as recorded r.r, worth nothing beyond
reorises.''' After that date the Bishop's occupation closes. In the
survey of 1647^ the jurors ronorted, ''..Ve present that there is a
manor house in the form of a mansion house built of stone with a
dove house, but the same totally demolished and the stones thereof
not worth the pulling dOivn' .
This castle manor house, lying to the south west of the village,
on Ihe knoll and standing in the park, would seem to have had as its
means of access the small field Deep T/ell Close which formed rjart
of the demesne. Roads fi'om this entrance took both easterly and
•.'("esterly routes across tlie channel to the demesne arable land to the north. The roacLs also gave access to the main routeway through the
village,allowing communications in both easterly and westerly directions
The westerly of these roads also pave access to Foumards pasture, while the easterly if pursued took the traveller to Gornforth. To the south of Deep .Veil Close lay the park (Fig. 38.), mentioned above, in which the manor house stood and which probably originally hold deer and rabbits for the use of the lord. In the 1647 survey, how^ever, it is described in the following terms, ' .Ve present that the/'e is a park walled about cent by estimation JO acres worth ann, 7s. every ciore in toto ,f24-'i0~0. .Ve find no deer, reed or fallow, conyes or other game, the same being disnarked many years since, it is good for pasture...... The timber standing and grov.'ing on the premises is being all (ash?) is worth to be sold ni5~0-0 ' This unit of park, manor house, e.nd arable demesne influenced the form of the village considerably end although the manor house was no longer in existence, it formed e stable landholding unit throu.'h to at least 185O with the wall of the park still present today.
Although the church is nowhere older than I382, the list of 26
rectors and vicars dates back to 1146, go there vas probably a previous church of a less-substantial nature. Its oosition on its yjresent site reflects the influence of the bishop's residence at the time of its foundation for it occupies an elevated situation close to the entrance to the park and awa.y from the most populous part of the village.
The building of the manor house and its occiipation in t'he 12th
century by the bishops, and the construction of the church at this
time, would seem to suggest a period of socio-economaic activity which
may a^lso have included the planned layout of the village v/hich would
accord with the findings, of lloberts and Shopnard who suggest this
period as the most likely time for the foundation of planned settle•
ment s.
If the Bishop's servants did, at this time, take up their rods
and demarcate the village olots for the m.edieval tenants, then the
evidancQ j.s at its most obvious in the north and south roy^s lying on
the limestone plateau to the north of the channel. Shor't tofts can
be observed in the north row -with regijlar tail boundaries where they
abut the demesne arable land. There is a suggestion that they may
even h-ve been taken from thfe demesne arable. Kven though the plots
have tie aopearance of being sub-divided, close examination reveals
a regularity of width. In the south row the toft lengths are less
regular, due to the steeo falling away of the land at their tails into
the drainage channel. A regularity of width is also displayed here.
These plots probably represent the relict village holdings of tenants
with husbandlands in t}ie medieval township. R. A. Butlin asserts that
in the lowland tovmships of 'Forthumberland and Durham, these probably numbered between c'O and 30 with holdings of c26 to 80 acres."''
The olots lying in the bottom of the channel along the road from the church to the green ana those facing the north ro-w across the i;reen r-1
also show a regularity of layout although, in tiiis instance, the
plots are much smaller. These, perhaps, can be equated with another
category of tenant in the medieval vill. Butlin states that present
in the lowland townships there were also usually about 8, 9 or 10
cottagers who held a few acres in comm.on fields and often paid for
them in poultry or eggs.'' jiccordlng to Boldon Book there were in
Middleham and Gornforth .?6 villains, 7 cottagers and 4 borders who
held 4 tofts and crofts.
Cornforth
Of the three settlements, Gornforth would seem to be less
inflienced by factors other than those associated v/ith its function
as a planned nucleated rural settlement. That it has the elements
of s, planned village becomes evident when the maps (Figs 14,27.) are
examined and the village is visited. The broad rectangular green,
some three and a half acres in extent, is enclosed by rows of inwar.d
looking houses and farms. Thorpe's description of it as a broad-
green village of rectangular shape enclosed with houses'' would seem
fitting, snd Roberts' classification of it as a multi-row settlement
vifith a polygonal green*^ adds a touch of precision. But even this
does not indicate the extent of both the regularities and irregular•
ities of this village. One factor more than any other has contributed
to the oersistence of its form, and that is the absence of a through
rout.iway.
Its alignment along a north-south axis is in contrast to the other two settlements in the 'r.anor which have an east-west alignment.
Its position on the north facing slooe of the valley of the Goxhoe
Beck gives it a different aspect from the other settlements. Although there are t hree access roads to the .areen, the main routeway passes the village to the east. As in the case of the other villages, by 28
1857 a building had occupied a place on the green. This was a school.
The village consists of an east and west rovir facing each other
across a broad green with a north ro'w facing tlie southern end where
the south east corner h;.3 been occupied b;^ a complex of buildings.
Two tofts lying side by side face northwards to enclose the green.
A notable feature is the evenness of the T)lot head line in the east,
west and north rows. I{egularit,y is further emohasised in the west
row where the length of the tofts is remarkably uniform with an even
boundary abutting the fields. This west row may be compared with the
north row in Bishop i'iddleham, which is of a similar continuous nature,
In Cornforth, however, the building line is open at the southern end
of the row, end the re are two empty tofts in the centre. In the
east row the length of the tofts is less regular due to the curving
nature of the roa,u. trut by i;;;/-;;:as tiio village, thus affecting the
tails of the plots. Plot widths show a remarkable regularity through•
out the village, a notable e;-:ce;otion being the south eastern corner.
This is the most irregular part of the village where the complexity
of the ouilding coverage hides any discernable regularity of pattern.
In summary, the vvest row is the dominant formal clement facing,
across the green, a shorter less regular, east row, with the north
row forming a small head row feature. The irregular complex pattern
at the southern end of the green offers some problem of analysis.
The sha;ae of the settlement, with the main access road entering this
southern end of the ,";r3en seems to suggest that this may have been the open end of the green which faced the arable fields and common
pasture, and on to which the track ways converged. These irregular plots, and corresponding plots in the west row, may have been row extensions. 29
Sedgefield
In their examination of Sedgefield, both Thorpe and Roberts use
the same classification as they do for Gornforth. The main difference
between the settlements is their size for, as has been indicated
alrea.dy, and as can be soon from the olans, Sedgefield (Pigs. 12,28.)
is the largest of the three.
Unlike Bishop Middleham, Sedgefield has not the complications
of physica.1 features to inhibit its development, for although the
chu.rGh occupies the highest pt.rt of the village, the differences in
elevation are small and any resulting slopes very slight. Nor has
it the absence of a through routeway to fossilise its form, as is
the case with Gornforth. On the contrary, main routes from the
surrounding associated settlements converge on Sedge.field and it
also lay midvifay betv/een Stockton and iJurha.m on the turnpike.
In form, it resembles, in a more complex way, the nattern
displayed by Cornforth, although its axis is running east-west. The
morphological elements comprise a north row, a south row and a west
head row, round a broad rectangular green of some 4 acres area.
The south row plot head line is broken by the rectory garden, while
the north row, although stepped, is continuous. The west he;-,d ro'w
is of a long continuous nature v/ith its back towards the liardwick
lands. The plot head line and tail line, although gently curving,
are even. The eastez'n end of the -reen contains the church and displays
a complexity of plot pattern similar to that in Cornforth.
Kxamin-ition of the tofbs shows a regularity of width both in
the north and south rows and in the west head row. Toft lengths show
regularity within small limits, but also show some significant
ii'regularities. In the west head, row, the v;;rying lengths of the plot tails are the result of the presence of the l;ane there. In the 30
north row there are two steps in the plot head line which have pushed
the building line further back.
Specific features of the Sedgefield plan are the occunatiun of
the green by a group of buildings and by the church. The lanes that bound the village to the north and -west are examples of the baok iB.nes th.-^t are features of many street or green villages, allowing access to the toft tails and in this case, bypassing v;hat must have been a very busy medieval village.
As early as 1312, the importance of Sedgefield as a nodal centre was confirmed when the bish.rp, while reserving to himself the tolls and customs, granted his tenants in Sedgefield village a Friday market and a five days fair annually on the feast of 3t. Edmund and the three days following. Before 1 345, hov/ever, the '^riday market had fallen into neglect, and unauthorised buying and selling took place on
Sundays, -which v/as subsequently prohibited at the request of the rector
A market was still held on Prid-a.ys in 1794, as was a yearly fair on
I83O, the Friday after the feast of St. J.;liriund. By the market w do
'but nominal'^ and a fair for the sale of swine was held on thefirst
Friday of each month. So, although Sedgefield ha.;i some claim to market status in the medieva.l aeriod, its subsequent performance in 9 thft.t field never allowed it to attain any great importance. Roberts recognised some villages that developed functions that set them aside from the mere rural village. These are multiple rov/ settlements with evidence of intensification of building on the plots and the addition of further morphological units. Sedgefield contains much of this kind of evidence as do other settlements in the country. But such villa ges usually acquired urban stetus, for example, Stockton and Darlington.
Other's, like Sedgefield, never attained this status. It would seem, though, that the buildings on the green represent market colonisation 31
whei'e i;he temporary market holdings became permanent and were
demarcated as occurred in many medieval towns, Nev^castle, perhaps,
being a good local exa,mple.
The position ori the green of the church, whose visible structure
dates from 1245, is not so readily explained in terms of colonisation.
The western boundary of the churchyard and the rectory garden could
well have formed an earlier boundary to the extent of the village in
the middle of the 15th century, with the eastern end open to the
fields and pasture. In the north row there is a significant break
in the building line which corresponds to this western boundary of
the churchyard, and from then on the tofts to the east are a shorter
length than are those to the west. The nid 13th century prosperity
probably saw not only the construction of the church, but the extension
of the village to the east. It* this were so, then the building of
the church in this position was not an act of colonisation of the green,
but one of village extension.
The influence of Sedgefield as a small market centre is shown
in the r'oad pattern which tends to focus on the village (Fig. 29.).
The pattern of routes is radial with links to Bradbury, Hordon,
Poxton-Shotton, Layton, Butterwick, Embleton and Pishburn, There is
no direct route to either Bishop Middleham or Gornforth. The route
pattern in Bishop '.-liddleham parish is circular v/ith a road from
Bishop Middlehara to lhainsforth, Thrislington and Cornforth to the
west, and another road back from Gornforth to Bishop Middleham.
Whereas, in Bishop !,'!iddleham, main routes seem to b;'pass the villages,
such is not the case 'with Sedgefield. Here the convergence of route- ways has reinforced the nodal advantages tliis large village had, sit• uated in this open position in the undulating terrain of the Tees lowlands. 32
ii) The Associated Settlements
The planned la.yout was not only a feature of the bishop's
villages, for- both I'ordon faid Pishburn show the regular morphological
elements that are present in the settlements already discussed.
Mordon (Pig. 17.) is a two-ro-w settlement aligned in an east-west
direction i'.ith a -west head row. The green is rectangular in shape,
is not so broad as that of Cornforth, but is approximately the same
area. The south row has a typiaal plot pattern with tofts being of
a similar length although varying in width. But plan examination
would seem to suggest that there are four plots of the same v/idth as
plot 123. The building line is not continuous with evidence of
empty tofts. The north rcw is pierced by the road from Bradbury, and
the regular plot pattern seems to have disappeared 'with only traces
of toft elements in plot 105. The more substantial farms (plots 94,
95 and IO5) are situated here, -which may account for the disappearance
of the toft pattern for, in the south row, where the predominant form
is dwellings, the plot pattern seems to have survived. The short
west head row has inhibited extension in that direction, but it is
more likely t'lat the village has turned its back on the Mordon Garrs,
an ill-drained area of the unper Skerne valley which lies in that
direction. The e astern end, of the green, which carries the road to
Sedgefield, has remained open. This is where previous drift-ways and
tracks would have converged on to the village green.
The rectangular raorahological elem.ents of Pishburn (Fig. 15-) ,
another two-rov/ settlement, occur in the south row -where there is
evidence of tofts of regular widths and lengths, although there is much subdivision by l857« There is also a back la,nd joining the toft tails. The north row shows only very slight evidence of a similar toft arrangement in plots 147, 149 and 15O. If there has been a 33
regular plot pattern it has almost disappea.red, with substantial 19th
century farms occupying irregular plots, a situation showing
similai'ities with I'ordon. Extension of the village to the east
carries on this difference in plot arr;.ingement between the north end
south rows. There is no head row development and the green seems to
have been colonised b;/ a small close (plot 143)«
Bradbury (Pig. 16.), by 1857, ""0,s an irr8gul.-:r cluster of farra-
stead^s with a number of cottages On small plots. There is, ho-wever,
some evidence of regularity for there is present a small north row
of fcui elongated plots ( numbers 70, 73, Ih- and 75 on the r.'lan)
which have similarities with tofts seen elsewhere. There is also
present a small rectangular green. The settlements that have been
referred to a,s farm clusters are similar in form to Bradbur^/, but do not have the sm.all cottages oresent -which suggests th't, had not toft
desertion taken place, then Bradbury m.ay have been typical of the smaller settlements in the area. On the plan of Poxton (Pig. 22.), for example, plot numbers 86, 85 and 91 nioy be the I9th century remains of a plot system similar to that in Bradbury.
The farm, clusters are settlement forms that are the product of the change from the co-operative system of medieval agriculture to the raethodij of the individual yeoman farmer of the 19th century. The farmstead, with its enclosed stockyard, replaced the village with its enclosed green. The gin-gan was an addition to'he farmstead that enabled the farmer to grind his own corn, rather than rely on the co• operative mill belonging to the manor. The farmstead also included cottages for labourers in its structure. The labourer had previously held, at least, a village toft as his si:ake in the land, but changes that came after the I4th centur;/ made his sresence there anachronistic.
The dramatic fall in the medieval population had taken a way the 34
pressure on the landlords to concentrate on arable production in the lowland areas of Durham. The Malthusian check of the 1340s had given agriculture a, breathing space d-uring which reorganisation inevita.bly took place, the -weakest elements in the socio-economic structure paying the greatest price. The effect this had on settle• ment f orm-w as the removal of village tofts where the landowner had sufficient individual control. That some, but not all, landlords did this is seen in t he f orm of the Sissociated settlements in the Middleharaarea. When the depopulation took place is unknown, but in 1857. Mordon, Bradbury and Fishburn, for example, were still in existence as ham].ets with cottage settlement. Othe:cs, such as Foxton, Shotton, Butterv.dck, Smbleton and Garmondsway had been reduced to farm clusters with no trace of cottstge elements.
Yet, although the need to hf;.ve a nuGlea,ted settlement as a nodal place, -where the agricultural -workers of the township were housed, had disappeared, the new farmsteads continued to be located in clusters.
This unvfillingness of the farmers to disnerse their dwellings seems to have been a tyvoial response after the enclosures of the 17th 2 century for Roberts points out that there is no evidence for a general movement out of farmsteads to fields after early enclosures in lo-wland Durhaim. The pfitte,rra of tracks and lanes must have rein• forced the village site as a, place from where access to the f ieldf>
V'f&s at its easiest. In these small townships the construction of new farm.steads and access lanes would be expensive in terms of land, ma.terials and tim.e. Also, a co-operative system that had functioned for generations would have bred in people a gregarious dependence v/hich would not readily be broken dovm overnight. T?ie similarities in form of these farm clusters can be seen on the series of plans produced in Figures I8 - 23. 35
Mainsforth (Pig, 20.) differs from the rest ol' the settlements
in this category for it has a hall. In I823, Robert Surtees, the
owner of the estate, described the settlement in the follo'wing terms.
'Mainsforth occupies a, dry, gravelly and limestone soil yet girded
on the north west and south by the m.a,rshy level of the okerne. The
village consists of seven scatte -ed tenements (and four centuries
ago it contained no more), and is surrounded by old farm enclosures.'
An examination of the 1857 plan shows that his description would well fit tiie situation then, iipart from the hall, there are four farm•
stead units and tyjo small tenements (plots 52 and 76). Ifis mentioning
that the form of the settlement -was the same in 1457 begs the
questic:n of whether or not its form changed round about that time.
It is at this period that il. 7/. Beresford maintains that village de- populs.t beginning to increase. The hall, according to Pevsner, is probably early l8th cent"ary and has had little effect on the form of the settlement other than to add a further morijhological element.
The word 'hall' aopears on the 1857 naps in describing and locating the residences of the local gentry as opposed to the home• steads of the farmer, v/ho either occupied the land or held a small farm in his o 'mansion houses', or by the cartographer, Maire, w^ho calls them gentlemen's houses. On the 1857 map, Rardwiok Hall forms a prominent feature set in its ornamental park. The estate is mentioned in Boldon Book ana the iiatfield survey, but there is no indication as to the nature of the settlement. On Saxton's 1576 map it is shown as a hall and is so shown on subsequent maps until 1768 when Armstrong fails to record it. 7»'h3n Hutchinson wrote in 1794, there was no village of Ilardwick 36 and he described in detail the pleasure gardens a Mr. Burden had constructed but stated that, 'Mr. Burden had not yet thought proper to build a mansion house'. Presumably Mr. Burden had removed a previous hall in order to construct his plea.sure gardens. By l857 the present hall had been built and the estate formed pa.rt of the township of Sedgefield, although it had not formed, part of Middleham ma.nor. The Isle was afreehold manor that had been linked with Bradbury as eairly as 1"343« It was recorded as ncssessing a hall in 1575 by Saxton, and is included, as such on the other historical maps up to ejid including Kitchin in 1750, but on the I857 map appeairs as little more than a farmstead. Of Thrislington HaL 1, 'Villiam Hutchinson -writes in 1794 that the mansion house was ' that of a superior style in the beginning of the last century. (cl6uO) The mansion is now going to ruins.' Recent excavations by the University of Durham Archaeology Department have sho'/m this to be the site of a deserted, villatge and the historical maps from I6OO onwards consistently show it as a small nucleated settlement rather than a hall. Desertion seems to have occurred by about 1500 (Fig. 24.). By 1857, Old Acres is mapped as 'Old Hall', although among the early cartographers it is only seen by Maire as such when he maps it as a gentlem.an's house along vrlth Madnsforth and The Isle. The remaining settlements are La.v'ton and S'wainston which were recorded on the 1857 maps as individual farmsteads. however, both Saxton in 1576, and Maire in 1711, show Layton as a gentlemen's house. By 1857 other farmsteads not associated with nucleated settlement sites had been graced by the name of 'hall' end these are shovm on the distribution map, Figure 30« iii) The Deserted Settlements The settlements discussed above all bear the names of, and are situated in, old townships. They also, with the exceptions of Old Acres and Hardwick, are villages or hamlets, or occupy the sites of deserted villages. The knovm deserted sites in the yje-rishes of Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield are Thrislington, Carmondsway, Butterwick, La^rton, PJmbleton, Swainston, Poxton, Shotton and The Isle (Pig. 11.)."^ a'hen such settlements as these were deoopulated is a question that continiies to occupy the researches of geographers, historians and archaeologists for the ans'.vers lie in documentary evidence and in the soil itself. The inexora.ble increase of the medieval population in the 12th and 13th centuries reached its peak in the first half of the 14th century. The close pattern of nucleated rural settlements in south oast Durhami, taking into account the deserted sites, ,vas the result of this lerlod of population boom. Village desertion occurred subsequent to the catestrophic decline in population in the mid-14th century, a process which had accelerated by the time the Tudors were 10 ruling England. M. W. Beresford states that post-plague depopulations in the second half of liie l4th century, ourely as a result of the reduction of the number of oeople, were fev; and far between. The late 14th century saw a continuat3.cn of the medieval agricultural system Vi-ith, perhaps, more land given over to pasture than oreviously and villages being occupied by fewer people ra.ther than being abandoned. Village tofts would be vacated, rather than whole villages. The great depopulation probably came after 1450, when there was agreat change in land-use from arable to pasture to raise sheep to supply the thriving v/oollen industry. The Tudor anti-enclosure literature of the early l6th century fought against this change in land-use and legislation against village clearance has meant that documentary evidence proving the existence of many of these settlements has been removed. It has already been suggested that many of the farm clusters OGcunying deserted sites are the result of the process of reduction of the village sise by the aba.nd.onment of the village tofts. In some cases, as at Thrisl:lngtcn, Sweinston and Lay ton, for example, sites were only occupied by one f arms to ad in 1 857 (Fig3. 2'\, 25.) • .Vriting in 1794, Ailliam I'utchins en states that Thrislington 'retains no mark of a village, one house only remaining'. This use of words implies the existence of a former villa.ge, at fftct that has been s'a'vported by archaeological findings. ' Cf Sv-/ainston,' he says, ' we find nothing memorable except, near one of the fairmhouses cailled Low Swainston, the •v.rtiqes of several houses v/hich appear formerly to have been a consideraible village' because of the lack of docamcntary and cartographic avidenc the arocoss andiiate of such abandonment can only be placed within the general framovvork of Beresford's chronolog;/. In the case of La;/ton, however, there is available evidence that takes us neairer to the event. Reference has already been made to tna existence of an estate map of Layton, surveyed by insti^-ument in l608 by Robert .Fa^rrow. 11 /.'jcomptJtiying this are also two folios referring to the plan. The map, Figure 10, has been drawn from the original olan, reference being 1 2 made to the work of M. Beresford, ana the site of the settlement has been enlarged. 'The scyte of the houshes' orobably indicates the place where 'ye garden house and curtledge aire not measured', which was stated at the end of Farrow's abstract. This site was occupied hy the farmstead of Layton in 1857» In 1608 it was bounded on the vifest by the Pond G-arth and to the south by three closes, one of them. Orchard Close, which abut Mhc-t appears to be a narrow green on the 39 Stockton to Duz'ham. Turnpike. Ps,rrow has named this the Streate Lonng (probably 'lonning'). Tc the south west of this lie the Bye Carths which, at the present time is a field displaying the typical hummocky ground of a d.eserted village site. Beresford gives the evidence of crop marks from aerial nhotograohs which indicate the presence of former houses. Clearly, the village had been deserted by 16OB, but further research by Beresford enabled him to report that, 'Deposition in a lawsuit of 158)6 stated that the witnesses kne-w that there h:\d been a tovm (i.e. village) of East Layton earlier in the century.' Unfortunately, Parrow did not include any buildings on his elan, although there appears to have been one present. In 1576 Saxton's map shows Layton as only a house and along with Beresford'a evidence this would suggest that the depopulation of Layton took place, at the latest, in the first half of the l6th century, which would accord with the period of Tudor protestation. This limited evidence suggests that at least the depopulation of Layton village fell into Beresford's post 1450 period of village desertion. It would seem, on the other hand, slender evidence on which to base a chronology for the depopulation of the other sites under considerat i.on. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that desertion did take place in the Tudor period or earlier, da.te after 16OO being unlikely for by that time the ro.yal authority hed been established through the parish system and the local magistrates. Illegal acts of depopulation would h.- ve been very difficult to get awaiy with. Settlement development on these sites between I6OO and I85O took place on sites that had already been depopulated by this earlier date. 40 iv) Di:ipersed Settlement The establishment and nbandonment of nuolestions are not the only processes involved in the creation of the rural settlement pattern of south east Durham. By 1857 the tov/nships v/ere characterised by distributions of individual f Lirinsteads. In some uf them, farmsteads formed the vestiges of nuol cat ions (i.e. farm dusters) v/ith only limited dispersion, for exaniple Foxton and Shotton, y.'here only two dispersed farmsteads are present in the township (Fig. }0.). iit one extrem.e, Thrislington only possesses one farmstead occupying the site of the old village with no dispersion, while at the other extreme Sedgefield has some twenty farm.steads scattered throughout its lands. In the period before 16OO, little is known about the process of dispersion in these Durhc.m Lo.-ilcnds and even in the years after this, the spread of single farms 'is shrouded in a mist of generaliscitions' . The enclosure of the open fields was perhaps the most overt act that signalled the end of the medieval system of agriculture. In this area the process of enclosure by agreement was underway by a.bout 1585, f^iid. v/as almost completed by the end of the 17th century. A date of about 1600, therefore, is a valid historic marker separating those processes of dispersion belonging to a medieval and Tudor period, and those belonging to the period of Chancery Decree a^nd Parliamentary enclosures, In Middleham M^anor all enclosures were by agreement in the 17th century. Bishop Middleham was the latest to be enclosed in 1693, and Sedgefield av/ard was msde in I634, confirmed bv Chancery Decree in 1636. Of Gornforth, some uncertainty seems to surround its date for there is no reference to it in the Malm.ote Court records. J?. E. Tate states, ho-wever, that its award was made in 162I and confirmed by decree in 1624, although E. M. Leonard gives evidence 41 to support a. 1628 dr.te. There is no evidence that dispersion shown in Figure JO -vas an immediate result of enclosure and in some cases farmstails stayed on the village tofts. In the oiise of Gornforth, there is evidenoe of both di.spersion ;-:nd cf f; iTistalls remaining in the villcige. The map (Pig. 31 •) shovi's that in 1859, on the occasion of the Tithe Av/ard, there were,.certainly land-ovmership links between the toft holdings in the village and landovmership units in the fields. Interestingly, the lerid-ovmorship units in the distant, peripheral parts of the t.Avn- shop hfve no toft holdings in the villf-ge. COVVQSpondingly, the un- hatchea tofts are held by individuals .vith ho holoin^^s in the fields. The toft marked X, for exrmple, was ov/ned by John '..harton and occupied by the Cornforth Colliery C/mers. By I839, the links between the village tofts and the lends ware still strongly in evidence and there were also suggestions that holdings further away from the village had relinquished holdings in the village. A similar situ.vtion can also be seen in Bishop "iddleham (Fig. 52.). Although the tithe information on ownership of the village tofts is incomplete end, therefore, the pattern is fragmentary, it is sufficient to show that holdings in the village -were associated with old enclosed lands as vvell ES those in the open fields. For example, "lilliam Hussell's holdings in the east of the township consisted of two ferms. East I'ouse Farm vra,s an old freehold unit, while Sarucely was a leasehold unit and both have corresponding tofts in the village. Similarly, Island Farm is an old oopyhold farm held by the clergy of Pittington, C&stle Sd^n and Hartlepool, and it too has a corresponding vil'Iage toft. None of these was )art of the open fields in 1693 (Pig. 3S.). Dispersion of farmsteads fromi village toft to enclosed fields w.;uld seem to have been a process that certainly took place from 1628 omvards, where sites in former open fields and oommon pasture were being occupied. what date farmsteads were dispersed to the old enclosed Icands re'.piires research into pre-l60G documents for evidence whi ;h may be very difficult to find. Conclusions Prom the evidence of the distribution of settlement names on the historic maps of the county there would seem little doubt that the settlement pattern that couldbe mapped in 1320 was essentially the seme as that in 16OO. The unit of tov/nship and settlement bearing the same name would seem, to be a product of the medieval period (or evan earlier) a.nd has persisted not only until I85O but until the present day. This is not to say that change has not taken rjlece for, in two instances, the township has disappeared to be amalgamated with a large neighbouring tovmship. The Layton ana hardwick estates, both f reaaoldings, had teen abr.orbed by Sedgefield township by I85O, although still retaining their old names in the farms and the hall. ,,hen this took place is uncertain but neither Hutchinson nor burtees, in thei::- early histories, mention them as townships, although they treat them as separate estates. Changes in territorial organisation tha.t took place Letween 16OO and 1S50 should be placed within the framework of stabilitp" presented by the names, boundaries and settle• ments sites that persisted throughout these t;vo hundred years. i.lthoug!: there is muo;! ir Vm-. forms of the settlements which makes them remarkable, attempts have been made to identify Gha;;acter- istics Y/hich would alloiv general classifications to be made. This hais shown that they differ In size, for there are villages, hamlets, farm clusters, single farmsteads end halls, occupying what, in most cases, have been the forraer township settlement sites. These variations, in the first instance, are the results of limitations olaced upon settlers by favourable or unfavourable site and situation factors. For e:>ca,mple, it has been demonstrated that the villages and hamlets occupy the lighter soils of the limestones and sands and gravels, -.vhile the sm.aller settlements are g enerally situated on boulder clays. Sedgefield h;as enhanced its status not only because of the physical advantages of its site, but also because of its situation vis-a-vis the surrounding settlements. In I, he develooment of a settlement, however, it is the human decision that is the prime initiator of change and this can be the result of the action of the group or of the individual. In any event, it is the result of the complex interaction of environmental forces - physiograiDhio, economic and cultural. Decisions, however, are the result of the analysis of conaitions as they are perceived and not necessarily as they are in reality. Jlistorioal hindsight enables a vision that allows a much more object• ive view of process in the past, than wts available to contemporaries. It is important to remember that changes in settlement form resulted from decisions that were r: tional at that time, for it is easy to judge historic decisions in the light of 20th century knovvledge which is no less subjective. v»'hen attention is given to the process of change ana the settle• ments are looked at in terras of plot d em:-, re at ion and abandonment, the results become very evident in the plans. On looking at the process of desertion, for ex;;,mple, on the one hand t here ; re empty tofts visible in a number of the vill::ges and hamlets (e.g. Gornforth and Mordon). On t he other hand, the whole villa ge of Layton has. been dapopulf.ted, the site being occupied by a single farmstead in 1850. InlBtween these two extremes, there are a number of instances where former village sites have been reduced to no more that two or three irmacs toads (e.g. Foxton, Shotton, Srableton). But change 'was not all of tills negative sort, for t'lere is also evidence of stability in the persistence of plot patterns. This is the case in the major settlements of Bishop Ividdleham, Corni'orth and Sedgefield, but is also present, to a lesser degree, in hordon ad Fishburn. Sedgefield shows evidence of intensification of plot development that went with its increased socio-economic status. Variation in the forms visible in iBpO are not only the results of processes of change operating between the years IJOO ana I85O, for they began at the '/ery moment the first agricultural settler built his first temporary shelter, how far the plOv layout in 185O can be traced back in time depoiids on the availability of cartographic and documentary evicence. Clearly, cartograpliic evidence is most valuable, but in the Middleham Kanor and its associated settlements there is no man earlier than 0I82O that gives any indication of settlement form. The quest! ..n of projecting this pattern backv^ards is one that presents difficulties in the case of docum.cntai'y sources for centals and call books lack the detailed information to allow the plots to be indent fiad. A detailed study of the !Jalmoie Court Books may offer some reward but this would be a very lengthy piece of research. Failing these approaches, recourse must be made to t he general body of knowledge concerning settlement studies. Although lack of orecise historical data prevents a detailed chronology of settlement f'orra, reference to the work of such geographers as H, Thorpe, B. K. Roberts and J. A. Shepperd, has shovm that these settlements are typical in their regularities and irregularities of the villages found in Durham and ITorth Yorkshire. On the 3vidence available, the chronology of desertion and depopulation would seem to equate with that of M. W. Beresford. The forms of the A-5 f rrra clusters, the singles f' rmsteads and halls on the old village sites, would seem to be the result of processes that began vitli the agricultural changes of the 15th and early l6th century. By 1500, the major processes of the planned layout and of village depopulation had been accomplished. Changes that took place between then a .id 1820 were within the established pattern of 16OO and involved only minor plot subdivisions and amalgamations. Even after 1820, and until 1850, when the pros of industrialisation had increased, there was not 8 great weal of change in the plans of the settlements. The aopesrance of the 18th century farmstead with its easily-recognised form, as perhaps the most significant addition to the village toft and enclosed 'ield alike, aid must have affected the landscape considerably. The problem of deting the dispersion of the individual farmstead is closely linked with the process of enclosure which was, in some cases, medieval in Oi.'igin, and in others, 17th century. It has been shown that the village toft oxdginally held the farmstead and although there is evidence that farms were enclosed in both Sedgefield and Bishop Kiddlsham before the Chancery Decree enclosures, at what date the !.'ar';^jr left Ids toft to occupy a homestf:-ll in his fields is uncertain. Similarly, the date of dispersion after the 17th century enclosures is also uncertain, although a 'lalmote Court map of 1738 (Fig. 61.) shows the Farnless farmstead in the fields, but this occupied land that had been enclosed at an early date, other farm• steads remained on their village tofts or in farm clusters occupying the old village sites. In 1600 the plot patterns in the surviving settlements represented the private, clearly demarcated holdings of the tenants. In the bishop' 3 villages of Copnforth, Sedgefield and Bishop liiddleham. 46 these ariv.-te plots formed only a fraction of the tenant holdings in the township lands, the greater parts of which were shared consistinf of open fields, aastures raid aaoors. The 17th century was to seethe abandonment of the practice of shared lands v/orked in common in favour of the enclosed farm, worked by the individual, a process which ,vill be examined in the next chaofcer. i.1-7 Chapter 2 References 1. v.. T'OLI?:^, 'The G-reen Villages of Durham', Trans. Inst. Brit. G-eographers, ip (19'.9) 155-180 2. B. K. ROBSR'i'fi, ' iturr,l Settlement' jjui^-';:'",.^!";™"^^ ^ 'J Toessido J. C. Dewdney (id.), Durham 1970 3. JIFMw ii. ST*w;B"\,dlD, 'lledieval Village I'lanning in Northern England. Some Evidence from Yorkshire' Journal of ^listo^-ical Geography, Vol. 2, No. 1 , Jan. 1976 4. B. B. dCT^idTS, 'Planned Villages from Lledieval England' Ban Made ijhe _Land, R. Isaker and J. B. Harley (-id;..), Newton il"bot, 1975 5. N. IBJTCnNSON, Nistory of i^nti.iuitios of the County Palatine of Durham, 1 7 '7 6. Durham University, Depcrtment of Palaeograaliy and Diplomatic, 'Nalmote Court Records, IBdO, Parliamentary Surveys of Nanors of County J'lrham, July 1 6B7 7- Iw B. BUTBTN, 'Field Systems of Nortliumberland and Durliam' Studies of Field Systems of the 'British Isles, R. Baker rnd B. Butlin ( :us.) G;.:B.K'idge, 1973 2• Victoria Bistary OJ^ the County of Durham (1905 - 1928) 9. B. B. BOBEITS, ' Bural SettloWiuiiL' , Durhpiii County and City /.itli Teessid-a J. G. dewwep' ( M.), iJurB^.m l97o 1G. iB BEBESd'OHD, 'FouaBcd BL .. as aau Deserted Villages of the Biaule "'•SQs' I'an I'ada tlie B_'_ra I.. B. llaker tnd J, B. ''arley (Eds.), Ne\7ton ..bBot 197P Vi „ Bniversity of Durham, Dep- rtment of Pal;,;,ecgrwprry- ;y-u. Di_t'l.jmi. tie, Buker Baker VZ 72/2'f9 ;WM enclosure 12. V. B:BB:;SFr:iD, 'East Bayton, Co. Pur'.am, in 16OB: c.nother early cartograpliic represouort-'.jr a" dpsorced meaieval villuga.' Bado ..rchapol. dl •'BB7 48 7. S. TiT;, 'A iTandlisi- of dngllsh Enclosure Acts aind Awards ?t 26' 'Durham Field Systems ..aa^ Anclosuro I'ovaraents', Prop. Soc. Antiau. 'le wo as tie, X 1943 -^o 110-140 1'+ E. L'^Ci'IiD, 'The Inclosuae of the Gomaion Fields in the 17th Century' Transaction of the Royal Tlistorical Society, New Series, Vol. XIV 1905. 15* Durham University, Depertment of Palaeography and Diplomatic, Valmote Court Records, w80. Parliamentary Surveys of Manors of County Durham, July I')!.:/ CHAPTER T H R K E 0 w' N E R 3 K I P AND 0 G C IJ P A T I C IT OF T IT S LAND OiVTJERS^Tip OP THE LiJID The Tithe Awards for Gornforth, Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield were made in 1 359 and the ownership of the land recorded there enables the construction of the maps Figures 35, 40 ana 43• Details of owner• ship of the land at the beginning of the 17th century is not so readily available. The most useful documents are the enclosure awards of 1636 for Sedgefield and 1695 for Bishop Hiddleh&m. Neither of these has a map, the allotments btPLng recorded by verbal descriation, so identifi• cation of the plots presents a. problem. T'owever, a reconstruction of the allotments has been made by an earlier research worker. These have been recorded on Ilalmote Court First Edition 1:2500 and 1:1056O Ordnance Survey maps based on the 1857 field boundaries. Both the allotments at enclosure and the f ormicr open fields have been iaentif led. The writer has checked the enclosure a;.ards again* these maps and would agree •.•dth the conclusions. On this basis, maps of the tovmship lands of Bishoo Middleham in 1693 end Sedgefield in 1656 have been drawn (Figs. 34, 39.) and these sriow the openfields, common pasture, common waste a.nd the allotments at enclosure. The absence of an enclosure award for Gornforth in the N;lmota Court r-ecords does not enable a similar treatment for that township. Since the tenure of much of the land in Cornforth is leasehold, then many of the holdings are recorded in Bishop Cosin's Survey (1661), and in Old Notitia Books in the Miscellaneous Books of the '"almote Goau^t, and reference will be made to tliese to establish existence of the holdings as fair back as lossible. These maps give a, picture of the township lands before and after the enclosures in the 17th century and also in the mid-19th century. Although these are statin cross sections, taken together they do indicate the kinds of changes that had taken place during these two hundred years. 50 It is acknowledged that much could have occurred that these maps do not show, for example, there may have been a time during this aeriod when engrossing occurred at a rapid pace. It is maintained, however, that they show a general trend in the changes in the ownershMp of the land in the townships of Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield based on the cartographic and documenta.ry evidence available, the limitations of the retrospective projection of boundaries acknowledged, and that such a trend is useful in establishing a framework for t he examination of in divi du al f arms . Before proceeding toa detailed dis o u 3 si on of the landownership pattern,^ it would be useful to comment on the terms beings used, isithin the manorial boundaries there were those lands which were the bishop's and those that were held freehold and oivned by individuals. Of the latter there Is little information in the Ealmote Coui't records, since they were relatively free from court control. The bishop's lands were held by individuals in copyhold or leasehold tenure. In copyhold tenure rights to the land were by copy of the court roll. This was the oldest of the tenures and had attached to it, in those Ica/l-nd townships, labour services or payment in kind, but by the beginning of the 17th century these had been substituted by a money rent. Such owners were customary tanants and in the lowland areas of Northumberland and Durham in the medieval period, usually held farms of between 20 and 80 acres which consisted of riggs or lands (usually less than half an acre) scattered and intermixed in the common ara;ble fields, and dales (strips) in the meadows with rights of pasture in the common pasture and pasture waste. Such a holding was ".ermed a husbanaland and each cjustoraary tenant held one but could hold two, three or ever a half.'^ Leasehold tenure was by lease and at thebeginning of the 17th century these could be f or lives or for years, a systemi which persisted until the raid-l9th century. The bishop's demesne, for example, was not being worked by himself in the l6th century, but wasleing leased for lives. A category of very small tenant holding was the cottage. Cottagers only hold a few acres in the common fields for which they paid in kind or labour services (other than ploughing), although again, by the 17th century, these had largely been substituted by a money rent. They could be held freehold as well as copy and lease. In 1600 the bishop held the Grert Estate by grace of the monarch. Those holddng Irmds from, him on tiie t enures already described, as v/ell as the freeholders, are termed, le ndowners. They could work ihe land themselves or lease their holdings to tenant farmers who are termed occupiers. During the period under study, tenurial chan;;es took place and by the beginning of the 19th century some of the leaseholdtenures had been enfranchised by the bishop, usually at a purchase prise of twenty- one times the annual rent (Figs. 46,47.)• In I8OO, the bishop obtained an act of parliament for enfr-nchising copyhold or customary estates and for t!ie sale of several ruit r-ents, farm rents, acre rents, etc., issuing out of freehold and copyhold estates. Rents out of freehold estates were discontinu.ed at a purchase price of tvi/enty-one tim.es the annual rent and for enfranchisement of copyhold estates the following conditions wer"e to be fulfilled: a) Twenty-one .years purchase to be paid for quit rents, etc., b) Three times the am.ount of demise or admittance fine, c) One third value of timber trees -and wood, d) One year's purchase or value of premises for the enfranchisement and change of tenure into an absolute freehold estate freed and discharged from all suit of court services and other restrictions, e) The mines, minerals end quarries within and under the ancient inclosed lands and premises to be enfranchised are to be reserved to the bishop and. his successoi'-s."^ In so doing he presentee] the opportunity for a change in the systemi of medieval tenure that had persisted until that date. The tithe system v/as to lin^-er a further 40 years before the first step in its demise was taken in I839, -.hen the tithes were commuted for a fixed pa.yment. These, then, are the historical factors that are of significance to the following ejcaminat:'on of the pe-t terns of laxid-ownersBBp from 1600 to 1840. Sedgefield The enclosure award for Sedgefield (1636) dealt with the division of some 2,675 acres of op-sn fields, pasture and moors. These were divid.ed and allotted i.n lieu_ of 8i(. oxgangs and 21 cottages previously held, in common. A list of individual holdings in oxgangs and cottages is shown in table 5:1 vrit)-' the subsequent allotments alongside. Assuming that ell cottages received a similar allotment, an attempt has been made to see if ther'e v.a.s cny standsrdi.s at I on in t.he acreage awarded for an oxgf:ng (Table 3:2), But there seems to be little consistency for the award per oxgang ranges from 21 -acres in tlie case of iiobert Johnson, to 38 acres in the case of Thcs .Bright, a range of some 17 acres. The large landovmer does not seem to ha.vs gained at t he expense of the small, for Nicholas Freville, the largest, has only an average of 24 a.cres per oxgang, whereas Richard Rey, holding only one oxgang, has 32 acres 1 rood 38 perches for it. Nor does there seem to be any erualitp' alien comparing equal licldings. Thomas Smith, Robert Johnson aiid TBoma.s vi'right all surrendered 7 oxga^n -s, yet we :'e allotted 233 acres, 145 acres and 266 acres respeoiively in lieu. These figores would seem to pp suggest that some ovaners fared bette;- tha.n others in terms of acreage. iVhether or not such factors as nualita- of land, cost of improvement and accessibility v/ere taken into account is not knov/n. Such enclosures are ryphtly called enclosures by agreement, for such disparity must havebeon the result of give andtake allowing claimants to achieve personal aims. But under an open-field system of agriculture where holdings and tenure dated back, at least, to the medieval rsriod, the oxgang as a unit was not a constant roeBsure and bed came to m.ean a holding of an approximate size which needed, to be estimated and surveyed on enclosure. The recording of a tenant's holding in terms of acres, roods and perches was of major importance in the Identification of a landbolding. The next important event was to equate this acreage a/ith a territory when the foi'merly open field-s and, moors wea'e diviriedl and. the holding was given a. formal identity, and tenure was linked with a clearly demercated plot ra.thcr than yrith an individual, hhat this meant to the tovmsMp of .Sedgefield in terms of reorganisation of t erritory is shown in Figure 34, "where the allotments at enclosure are shown vithin the pattern of open fields a.nd moors. There are a number of holdings that did not aopear in the award. The largest of these were the lands of the form.er townships of Mardwick and La.yton which -«ere net included in the division. There ara two hollingo in the northern oart of the township (Fig. 33.) on the border end 1;wo smialler plots in perinheral positions, one in the South Field and one in the .'/est. Two small closes can also ta e .sen on the East Moor. These old closes are the result of enclosure that orobc.bly took place in the medieval periods and are a common feature of the township lands p of lowland Northumberland and Durham. Vi'hen looking at allotment size, it would seem that the sratiller allotments of under 15 acres tend to have two main locations. The first group are those that are situated near the village and can be found in B'est Field, Cra.myre, Ryall and Ikmxley. The second group are those found in the East Boor where a series of small allotments of about 5 acres each, were laid out and were ma;;ped- on the first e ditions of the Ordnance Survey mars as Cottage Allotments. Thirteen were laid out for the rector and seven .for other cottagers in t he township. Bptem.pts have been made to mark out slots so that they -''ould b e adjacent to plots held by the seme individual. Examples of this can be found in the South Field (Sl) and South Moor (SB1 ) where Rola,nd Nixon's allotments lie side by side, and in East Moor (EM10) and Ilauxley (H6) where Richard Ray's two allotments are adjacent. In the Best Field (J2) and North Field (N2) Nicholas Freville has obtained allotments next to IBardv/ick, vvhilo in the East Moor the rector has managed to link his allotment and cottages in the Sast Moor with his Glebe via a narrow field. The most important landowner in I636 was Nicholas Freville, for not onlv did he ovm Hardwick Estaite, but he was also allotted 226 acres situated in the open fields and moors of Sedgefield. Pie received 72 acres in the Best Field and another 72 acres in the North Field, both adjacent to Nerdwick, so extending that estate considerably. The presence of a group of small allotments in the ,.est Field prevented him from;, extending his lands to the village bounda.ry and the turnpike. These small holdings were to disappear by 1859 (Fig. 35-) by which time the extension of the boundxry h' d been achieved, j-lthough it would appear at first glance that these holdings were an inhibiting factor to the extension of Nardwlck, the divisic.n of this Tiold i.nto such small holdings suggests that this may have been a -ploy which gained advantages for all. The total acreages of Gonyers and the two Johnsons were about 150 acres each. It would seem unusual that a small part of each cf these should he {:,llol;ted in the est Field (13, 15 and 15 acre re3nGctiA''ely). There e,ro also Puur allotments of 3, 4, k- and 8 sores. These may express a desire for a paddock near the village, but other fields near the village could hcvcj fulfilled this neod. It v.'ould seem a stronger probability ti-ei the allotments were made so that Nicholas Preville or his successors could buy then: so extending Hardwiok and at the same time providing capital that .vouldbe nyoded to enclose the allotments and hedge the fields of the vendors. Nioholes Freville had inherited the Kardwick Estate from deorge Preville to whom it had been granted by Elizabeth I on 26th Kay, 158O for services in the Rebellion of the darls of Westmorland and Northumberland. It remained in the family through the female line until -1748, when Thomas Lamb ton died leaving six daughters. The estate was sold to Mr, John Burden, ,Nio later sold it to V/illiam Russell in the 1780s * The Lay ton Estate was also acsuired about tliis time. But the Kardwiok estate also proved voracious in the township lands of Sedgefield. In extending the litrdv/iok Park Lands the following 1636 allotments had boon absorbed by 1839 and ,7..-re in the hands of :tilliam Rus sell: Ovnier Field "D p Na-0 Vief John fJhipchase North 33 5 12 N4 John Crregson North 13 3 36 -.'lO Robert Johnson est 15 0 0 ;.'i Roland I'ixon "Vest 0 0) u3 ) Robert Bellerby dest 5 0 0) John Johnson 'Vest 15 0 0 d4 Sir Ralph Oonyers dest 13 0 0 dp vrilliam Elstobb "V'e -;t 4 0 0 56 Robert jmtkin •'•est 4 0 0 ;,'6 109 } 8 Other aoquisitions of the Hardvi/ick: Estate that foiTned part of the 1656 award were: Q-.vner _P llav Refer: Robert Johnson South lioor 60 0 0 SM7 Thomas SiTiit}i( part) Soutfi Moor M-2 2 7 SM5 Leo. lliddleton CP Craraj'Te ^' - 0 5 C2 Sir Ralph Gonyers Fauxley 71 0 19 115 John Johnson Ryall 1+9 11 Ii5 Thomas ..'right( part) Hauxley 40 1 2 115 John Harrison Ryall 53 1 1 R4 Ralph Ord Ryall 16 3 2 R9 Richard liey '^ia-vt 1,'oor 21 2 20 '3l!10 Richard Eey ];au:cley 16 2 13 lib TOTAL 429 3 5 When these Sodgefield acquisitions are .'dded to the avard of Nicholas Preville (226.1.13) the total of some 767 acres is the measure of the engrossing achieved by the ov/ners of this estate. In all cases, r/ith the exception of part of Thomas •/•.mith's ;)cuth Moor allotment and yaart of John Johnson's Ryall Field allotment, the lands taken over were compjlote allotnents as deriara-ted in 1636. There is no instance of Kardv/icff estate fretting rid of land. A 'V shaood parcel of land in the noi-th of the township is an old copyholding previously enclosed, belonpinr; to ,'illiam Russell. Reference to the land-ownership map of Bishop Middleham (Fig. 40.) will show that this adjoins V.illiam Ru.asell'5 old enclosed lands in thi t townshio. 'Jl These :ls!: aajcin the nc.''the..'n boundary of the hard.vick Park lands, so enlarging tlie area by some 371 acres with a further 243 acres elsevrfiere in bishop bi.ddlehara. In Cornforth, however, he is poorly represented vcith e holding of only U\ ys. BP, This did not. represent the total of the Russell estate in 1839, for the tithe avw^rds for Foxton and Shotton, Bra.iiburp'' and liorden, shov considtjrable holdings there, ;vhile there were others elsewhere in the county. The following is a summary of the uart of the Russell estate in the parisliss of bedgefield and Bishop I'iddleham in 1839: The Russell Estate in the i-arishes of Sedgefield and Bishoa widdleham Township A R P Sedgefield 754 1 36 Bishop Lliddleham 6l4 0 1B Cornforth 7 3 8 Bradbury 99 0 27 Korden 398 2 21 Foxton and Shotton 1770 2 21 ':kT.\L 36/^4 3 11 The largest award in the division of 1639 went to Thoraas .'right which was (apart from 1 acre in the South Field) in two allotments lying at each side of the Rectorial G-lebe, one being the Bast Close (15GA OR 6P) and Uio other a part of the Hauxley Field (n3) (126^ 3R 22P) By 1839 the llauxley Field allotment had been divided into three holdings as follows (Fig. 35.): 58 Ovmer A i P V,ill:iam Russell 40 1 2 Frances TTewbum ) 1 .'.8 0 3 John Goates ) John Lp/nn 41 1 24 dOTiX 129 2 29 The East Close had persisted as a stable landiiolding and was in the hand;-; of the Dov^ager Lady Elizabeth Barrington v/ho, in 1839, '.'/as the second most important l&ndovmer in Sedgefield. Another substantial owner at enclosure was Thomas Smith vdiose awa.rd increased in size by 1(339 'with the acauisition of seven fields to add to the Ryall allotment (l:l). The aw/ard by that time, however, was in three hands as follows (Fig, 35«): O^mer Field M&£ A R P Rafe_ren_ce Dowager Lady Barrington North N5 38 1 3I 59 Do'ivager Lady Barrington South I.ioor SN5 98 0 1 .Vxlliam Russell South Moor SM5 h-2 2 7 Thomas Davison Ryall R1 62 1 28 34 0 21 From oldenclos 6 2 36From North Fie! The importance of t ;he Dow;j.ge r La dy B.'arringto n as a landowner in 1839 can be seen by the csuiwsi :.tions .'Ire; idy ma: oned, but the following 1636 allotments were als, 0 p;:,i't of her est; ;d;c by then. Nap Owner Field A R p Reference Roland Nixon (part)) South Moor) 3M1 Vfilliam Elstobb ) S out h No or; 18: 5 1 ,4 3N2 John Chipchc.se ) South Moor) SN3 Peter I.odshon ) ily;.dl dlice Buckle ) 51 ' 3 ; R3 J'cnry Blakeston ( pwrt) Ryall 1: 3 :? 7 R7 John Young Ryall 1 1 9 Ro ;,lonp vith small cottage holdings in the East Moor and formerly enclosed ilots, in 1839 the DowagerN'j estate was 740 acres in extent. Unlike .Villiaro Russell, she had holdings in neither Bis hot) Niwdleham nor Gornforth. She -va;; the -NV.ov of the Right Non. and Rev. deorge Viscount Barrington '..ho became Rector of Sedwefiela in 1791, received a prebendal stall in Durham in 1790, ;^nV' ciod in Rome on pth 'iarch, 1829, ^ gea 6S. Such an exalted )ersonage a.uld have held Sedgefield Rectory because it was one of the two wealthiest in the county, the other being Stanhope. The acquisition of this estate in Sedgefield would seam to nost-date 1791. By 1841 part of the Dowager's estate was i.eing sold off. This was the East Close v.dth former enclosures, and cottfges in the East Moor. (Fig. 48.) This represents one cf the most stable ownership blocks in the towns hi;). The engrossing that had taken place by I839 had altered the owner• ship pe;ttern tha.t had emerged from the 1656 shE^re-out. Tiie l;;rgest 6c estate had exoanded because it had as its nucleus the Ilrrdwick lands and tlie wealth accruing from them enebled Hicholas Freville .and his successors to take the ospcrtunities of expansion as they arosentad themsG^.ves. The Dowager's- estate did not develop in the same ••ay as the Russell estate, but it, to<.', reflects the importance of the nucleus of, in this case, the wealth tliat was accruing from this rich benefice. The importance of them both is in the consolidating of the allotments of 1636 as pert of a much larger stable land-ownershio block. Engrossing of this natui^e was inherent in the aaaiortionmm t at enclosure, .L.S can be s-en from Table 3:1:, owners ware -;iven allotments in arable open fields and In the cornmon pasture and moors. In most cases, this meant a split holding with compact units of less than 50 a-cres. The only holding, aaa-'t from, tliose of Hioholas Freville, that has remciined e. stable ovmershlp' unit in the hands of an independant individual is Roger Coy/lin's a\;ard that was made up of adjacent allotments in Dollioa (D2) and the East Lloor (EB'S). In some instances, as has already been indicated, the total award has been taken over by either the Dowager or 'Villiam Russell. There a re some cases viheve one or two of the 1636 allotments hs.ve been retained r:.nd. the rest relinauished tc the abova estates, s.s follows (Fig. 34 and Fig. 35«): 1636 Owner Field A T) P rgap Reference Henry Blakeston East Hoor 43 1 3 EH1 John Yoang East Hoor 28 3 20 EH7 Ralph Ord East Hoor 10 1 9 •;H4 Peter Hodsjion ) Cramyre 1 2 2 25 G1 i.lice Buckle ) East Moor 39 0 34 EM2 dilliam Elstobb Ha.uxley 40 0 0 Sir .Ralph Gonyers East Hoor 62 0 29 KH6 -dde d to it parts of the ac old enciosares, but this may have been 33 0 in 1 b36 . But this is a 61 adjustment to ...;hat irve remsinad as relatively stable land-07/ne-ship units bpsed on 1636 allotments and in the hands of indewendant owners in 1859. But if these remained stable, there v<'ere others that did wot, for example, after parts of the awards of the following had oassed into the hands of '.Villiam Russell and the Dowager by 1339, their remaining tillotments had been split. Marp 1636 Ovmer A P Field Reference Leo I'iiddleton ir7 1 14 South 1:1 o or Roland Nixon ;8 1 6 S o'ath S1 150 0 Nauxley H2 ( int act) (Learning Dyke) Thomas dright 125 3 22 Kauxley H3 Of the 1636 awards that remained free of the attentions of Nardwick and the Dowager, only one remained intact, being Roger GowlinVs allotments in Dolliop (D2) end the East Noor (EW5). In one award one allotment had remained intact by 1839 while the other had been sslit as follows: l6lL_Cvin2£ iL_^_,.P Zield I8l9 Robert Brown 51 1 13 Ea.st V.oor EH3 One Owner 73 1 0 North N3 Two Ovmer3 while in another case one allotment had remained intact and hadbeen enlarged by taking in adjacent lana while the remaining one had been split: l636_gwner A R ? Field „ .j^ 1839 Reference Robert watkin 2- 0 0 East Moor 1IM8 One Owner plus pai't of Robert Nindmers E.M. Allotment EN9 32 1 1 Rya.ll R2 Two Owiers The 1636 enclosure allotments of Sedgefield, along with those lands previouslp' enclosed at that time, form.ed the basis for 1he pattern of ownership that had emerged Y-j 1859. At that early date, tenurial rights 62 were linked to cle&rly demarcated, plots which became permanent. Once this was achieved, land became a f inite commodity, easily identii'ied and vvliich could bo bought or sold with greater facility. This is amply illustrated, in engrossing that was und.ert.aken by the Hardwick estate where lands that were in the ownership of those vdio could not maintain or develop them, passed into the hands of owners who could - a very importf.nt process in a. period, of agricultura,l improvement. Not only 'was this so in .3ed.gefield, but examination of the Bishop Hiddleham territory will shew that enclosure there had a sirailrr influence. B i a h 0 T: t.T i ddle ham Bishop Hiddleham fields were enclosed fifty sev3.n years a^'ter Sedgefi.eld in 1693» Vhereas la.nd .ovovloasly enclosed in Sed.^^ef lold formed cnlv e small .)&rt tla; total acreage, in Bishoa Hiddleham over two thirds ht.-l already been enclosed leaving less than one third of the land in opar fields rnd common pasture or some 622 acres. The location of tJiasc fields is shaam in Figure 38 ana their aoportionment in Figure 39 J ad ^n table d:?. The osen ara.ble fields wa .'e less than half the size of the large fields in Sedgefield andw.:;re cc.mparable v^ith two of the sma.ller fielas i.e. Gra,myro and a est Field. The old enclosed lond.s included the Demesne arable and tha Hark, the Farnless nastui-e closes and Sprueel.y and Horthleeze Farm, all of which Gtin be Identified in the 1647 survey and Bishop Gosin'3 survey as leaseholdings. Island ^exm is an old copyholding i-vhich is not mentioned by this name in the l647 survey. In 1859 it was in the hands of the vicars of Gf-stle Eden, d'ittington a.nd Hartlepool. Sast I'ouse Farm was a freeholding and, t'lerefore, do«3 not appear in the surveys or rental lists. The 'o wore other lands that hr d be wi enoloaedbefore 1693 f---S. reference is ma.d.e in the enclosure a;a.w-d, ''^oz- ea;..ai:;le, to 'land formerly enclosed balongj.ng to Hr. Bradshagh', o^" 'closes on 63 tiio east' and 'Nis own l;~.mP3 close' , inwicatin^^ attempts to mrke allotments /idjacont to 1; nd .rl 'eadp-' held so forming comasct units. These lands that "were formerly enclosed are s iiovwi on the 1693 field map (Fig. ')•'••) although it has not been possible to give the ovvnerahij) of precise :!loV:s. ii.^ i.n Sedp;efield, t?ie apord hss been ;riade on the basis of an allotment in the ar;:,ble fields ;;.nd one in the common pasture or grazing. There were no large moors left in Bi.shop iliddleham b^- l693 "nd the small areas of common gr;:2ing wesa the North Close, V^orth Close Letch and Nerrikncwles, while the co :mon w^sture was Foumsrds in the south v/est of the townsiii.p lanPs in the Ics-lying carr trea. The pattern of cmei'ship chan=p3 and the '.ersistence of allotments betv/een I693 and 1839 shows similarities with t ^e situation in de.dgefield. Ta.ble 3:3 siiows the awa.rds and allotments in 1693 end tliese can be used in conjunction with F'gure 39 ana Figure 'fO which show land ownership in 1693 and I839. Taking aside the holahpcf' Cuthbert Swainston which was the vicarial glebe, there were three main groups of landovmers in 1693^ a) those wiOIi avw^rds ;af betwesn 90 acres ;':.na 110 acres; b) those ,/ish a;;aras of hct.wjan 20 a.crcs una 45 acres; c) these widdi ;-w;rd3 of 10 ;scr.as and loss. The firs-;t two categories rc"S"cs-rt he husbaidl cmds in tiiis tcvinsaiip and the third, th.^ cottage holdings. Of the aw;:irds in group a), none of them hsJ remained in the hands of one owner by I839. But while the tot; 1 awss'o;; may h;^v..: been alienated or s;ili,t, none of th-^ individual sj_lotmants iisu been divided by that d;pt^^, arwi haP either' ]'emained in tdie hands of one owner or had bee t;dcan over ints.st by anotlawr 1 n:;o winr. Nor example, dilliam Br;;ds}iagh' s Middle Field ddlotmant (N4) had su::-vived intact, his "WDrth Close Latcii an..i HLumtrd'a (Hb) allata.ents had bjsn taken over t^y .::.nne Surtees by 1839, while !iis Nortli Close (HCp) allotment liad bean attached to Robert Brabant's Horth Close i^lot (HC2) to form Luke Estobb'3 holding A ,(3 y. xn 1t 9. Robert Brabant's major holding in the tea Field (d•3p ; tiau pasTod into tha ha.nd^i of the aurtees ff.mily a.nd his ;H.st Field slot (E2) had been added to John THitchinson's Hidals Field a llotment (H2), along with those of Thoinaaina ..ilsen in the Hi>,uile Field (M3) and Hary Davison in Horth Close (HG1). But slthcugh the John Hutchinson award showed these signs of engrossing, it had also got rid of the smaller allotments in Fouraards (F3) to .'.illiam Russell and the Horth Close Letch (HGL) to imne Surtees. In 1839 thi:; ajilar.;,ed compact holding was in the hands of deorge whea.tlep. 0^ the allotments in group b), th.at of John Crosby, in the :Iorth Close (HCif.), remained sew.rate in IG39. It had been enlarged by the addition of THomasina .vilson'Horth Close plot (HC5) and was in the hands of IRjrgaret Hatkins. Robert ''ut chins on' s Hidule Field allotment (HI) also su>:'vivad and a as offlied by John Ralph '"enwick. The resa .ere either in tha hands of .^illirai Russell, .wine Sartees or deorge '.(haatley. t.ll allotments had remained Intact exceyrt John Hood's test Field .tllotmont (v;.4), part of wliich had been tibscrbed by the Russell estate. Of the cottage holdings only tao i-emained in the .est Field i:and the tac remf ining ijs t}ie His t f.talQ. la.;.,; been combineu to foam one jvalding by 1339- Others pad been taken over b;' tlie Surtaes sst-ate. This is ,diat had ha.aaened ta tha open fielda; a.nd a stages, but land elsewhere in trie township lap^ in the hands o.:' four' m£.in o./ne:"3 a..-; spown in Figa.re 30. The mast important of these wa -ci .illiam ..iussell a.n( ane Surtees, "or they wai-a tha ..raijor landowners in th.j .srea. ;1 lliam Russell h;a; alrer.dy baan pep.tioned in I'elation to tedgofield, Layton £.nd Hardwiok. The Surtaas family oaned tlaj :iainsforth estate 65 adjacent to Bishop Niddleham s^n the ;/est (Fig. 3») This position, ccineidentIp-, mirroi's tne .iC:wition of Iw:.rd.;ick vis-a-vis Sadgefield -nd the im iortance cf tlie fa.milv' in the o;;nersrNp patteiai of Bisho;,) i.;iddleliam is similax-ly reflected. Tia; 1s93 '•.pilings that had a,xspad into tlri hands of tnis fa.iaily by 1S39 .w^re -..s follo.,s, PUP V la.N.c;pte the engross la J V,P:\L. PPW!. taiien plsce luring that time: C\;nor in l693 R P Fielu Referanct Nic'-iolas Freville ( NP47) Demesne Old Enclosure William Bradshagh 01... :-nclos...-j in E;pst doberc •"Nr.bant 3d 2 9 :es 0 ,vildia;p Brad.drxgh 3C 3 20 Foam rds F6 Thomas Oswald 10 2 5 -ast Cuthbert Burton 3 0 29 Ucst John Nildieton 2 2 19 East John Coisley 2 20 E; st Robert Laws 2 3 1 ..est Barbsra Parkinson 3 1 3 West The Russell est;,te shows j. a similar pattern of engrossing as follows: 0v.ncp;__3wi _1^69p .au,JI.Fi,.eld -p..d^„Q^ Nicholas Freville Sprucely and 'Torthleese ? East I'^oaso Far!n( Frc;ahold) ? Ola enclosure in the est Peter Nutchinson ^. . , .. . , , , . . / ^ Ola enclosura xn pest Field .1 own hutcarnson (.; r; John ,.'ood 27 1 2 .Vest i,4 Peter ''utchinson 22 0 10 ..est ,0 John Nutchinson (3) 31 1 1 Poum;.rws F3 John Nutchinson (j) 15 3 36 Foum'ssas F2 .'jd'.'vas'd Ft vswer 5 Fourn' rds T:ie Par'k and demeans art.ble formeu . ,Hw...blu laudiioldln,; in the hands of Elisabeth HallHe din 1838 • nd of ''Icholas Freville in 1647, a, hold:lng that seems to havs esci.'. )ed fi'om the H;;.rd..ick estate, tthe other stable unit was ttis "^slj.aid Farni in the h: nds of the three vicars oreviously aentioned. Once in the hanas of thass clergy it .vould tend to persist for it became w;;.rt of the benef"ices. Cornforth 'the dat'3 and nature of enclosure of the Cornfo::'th township a...'e obscure with onla occasional references to the event in the Halmete Court l..'C.,.,;i ;pt •. For example, th.e 1647 survey refers to a tenement in Cornforth, ' as it is now divided' . Du.rliam county is coiintp" of early enclosure and H. E. Tate " makes reference to part of Cornforth Hoor being enclosed in I62I. i.lthougii it v/as not one of the counties covered by the 153^ depopulation act, it V;-,':s included in the taentp'-tv/o counties to which the 1597 oot was to apoly vdiich indicates that enclosure must iiave bran taking plf.sa in the iStii century. E. IX. Leonard^ suggests that there mast have been much piecemeal enclosure taking place at this time, "'diere is no complete record of snclosu.e in Durham before 16335 but the 'e is evidence for t'lj enclosure of Hvirton and Dalton as early as 1585, end a great many cases occur between these two dates. So GOJimon had enclosure become, that in 1o56 a bill to legalise all enclosures me.dij within th'j last sl.-itv ya-rs was passed. Coanforth, according to Hiss Leonard, was enclosed by o.:a.Lar in Chancery 1628 Ho. 17, but whether this v/as the .dicle of the tov;nship l;.'.nds she does not ake clear. The pattern of th.a 1839 fields suggests tliat the enclosure was not aiecameal, for there is great regularity of layout .Saish iniii.cates that it wrs contemporaneous thus seeming to support Hiss Leonard's 162.• I.P the absence of an enolosu;.-e a.s'ard, recoarse must bo made to the distribution of ownership in 1839. ^be I839 op^nershia maw, Figure 43, is interesting comps.red. with the similar ma.ps of the other townshi-ss for, where;;,s in Bishon Niddleh;;.ia ;:md Sedgefield large a.reas of the lands arc under the ownership cf large landovmers such as Russell, the Dowager and Surtees, such is not the case in Gornforth. The three lorgust holdings in Gornforth are as follows: Il°£ii'i.Ii^--kf^iSi5^' in Goanforth, I839 Owner A R P Thomas Nas'well 377 2 17 Charles Garthorne 216 0 17 Jane Bates 189 1 21 As can be seen from the ownership mao and the farm map (Fig. 44.) these is a very close correlation between farm ana ownership bounda.ries. ..with the absence of large scale en.p'cssing this pattern of ovmership probably reflects more closely the pattern of allotments in I628. The 'e is also evidence of holdings in two or more p;prt3, for sxasiole: O'wner Farm No. Location R p Jane Bates 2 N. o:f village 63 1 27 1 S. of village 105 3 34 Charles d;prth.orn; 3. Vs. of village 40 1 39 7 S. E. of villa.ge 175 li 1 0 Thomas Haswell N. d. of vill;pge 239 3 25 0 J .7. of village 9 0 3 3 9 3. of village Jo 1 34 It is interestina; to rot..; !aai each of these owners taa : two or t hree village tofts linked with thes e plots in the fields (FV .) whic h suggests that engross;in a iww; t: akan place in those inst; .inces. Th onr.s -.a Naswell's hold3.ng, Ft irm. ''^0. 8, is recoraed as two se)ai ntri 0 3 in DC the Tithe ;a,a.ra ..ipa two seaaa'aue farmstalls- Reference to the t enure map' (Fig. 47.) aill siioa taat ciie of t ;iese i.; leasehold, an-..;, tha ophar freehold. t?her'e seems little ev.Ldence in tlie 1839 pattern that the practice of -allotment of an :radle and a pasture hold..tng was followea in Cornforth in 1628, although the fr-..gmantation of the land to the ..est of tha villa.ga, IJG storing th.; Co.ahoa Heck, suggests that this part of the township may have been eitlier i;he common arable or map'He meadovv, but this can only be conjaature for the absence of f.hu enclosure a.vard limits any a,nalysis in tt: i.s direction. One of the Halmcte Court '^••iscellaneous Books gives a numbea of plans of Leasehold farms in the manor drawn ;bout the second decade of the 19th •] 0 century. These plans are linked with entries in Old tlotitia Books giving information of leases a.nd fines for the farms going back to the 17th cent ary. Such evidence shows that many of these holdings ha.ve been very stable betpeen the l7th century and I85O. The 1839 land of the Rev. Thomas Richard SheToerdson (Fig. 31•), for example, is a leaseholdi.np fo yea's and came inao '.is hands in 1837, but through these references can be traced bock to 1 716 vdien it .'.as in t lie ha.nds of TH^'mas Lap-bourne and formerly belonged to Cdward Elstob. This last named owner enables a link with this estate as it is recorded in Bishop Cosin's Survey of 1661, when it was John Farrer'3 Lister's Farm. In this way many of the Leasehol'iings in Cornforth and indeed the -.vbolo manor, can be tra'";ed back to earlier dates in the 17th century and a more detailed studp" of some of these aill be made in Chiwitsr 5 of tliis v/ork. The aersistence of oanership boundaries from the 17th century seems to accord aell wits the evidoiioo in dishop Hiddleham and Sedgefield and suggests that here, too, the predominant influence on the 1839 pattern of o'pnership was die dlvH^ton of the township lands into allotments in 1628. The Fa-rms in I839 An imDortant a;apcot in the evolution of patterns of liind ownership between 16OO cud I85O 'was the tenurial framework ./hich formed a stable element in the agrarisn ciuriges that were taking ulsce during this period. It was stcible in t'lat the tenurlel practices of 07/nership were an inheritance from 'tdne medieval aerlo.d and persisted unchcinged until 1300. .dsat did change during this pard;;.a, was t ha concept of ownersliip, and although it is arguable th;;t it began to cha.nge during the medieval peri od, in these two Viuniwrpd and fifty ye-rs, during a process that came to be known ;s the Agricultural Revolution, it p^roceeded at a more rapid jace. The age of merciiantilism, the exnandi ng coal-raining irrlustry, early industrial activity a-n-i the d evelopment of a monetar3r sp'stem based on stock exch;pnges and bfmks, were onlp" a few of the factors thr.t enabl-jd the accumulation of capital for trie avirchaso of land in n market that had been given a boost in the l6th centu:ay ,hen henry YIII dissolved the monasteries, Gaoital investment in land became a recop;nised ecanpraic activiat.y. But money for inve;.;tra;mt came not onla,^ fi'om. thi.; merchant ;snd commercVal classes, but from the substantial Ifindowners who by the beginning of the 17th century s/ere ali'eady seeing the kinds of returns that could pome from well-manpged Isnds. In the medieval ;-jeri od the manori.al Itods of iliddlehami wese owned by the Bishop and held by his tenant- in terms of medieval tenure. By tlie beginning of th ; 17th century, this two tier sp'stem of manorial lord and tenant was already ch;3,nging, for there is evidence, in the l647 Parliamentary Survey of trie manor, of Pigh Farnless Farm (Fig. 38) l)eing in the h;inds of V.'icholas Freville, but being farmoa by Christopher Selby at a rent of P'32.5»d. By l339, a three t ier syatemi of this natu -e pjas well developed with the op;nera in manp' cases paying rents to the BishoD according to their tenures, and in turn le;..sing their holdings 70 to tojaant far.mers. The tenant f.'-.rmer3 in Durtaira, a.ccording to John Bailey,"'' held, id'ieir farms on lc;..ses o.f tareo anci seven ycrs, or sometimes even nine or tv^elve years, for sayment of a money rent. Treat:ing ..H.t;h the tenants a^as done some six to seven months before exatration of the old lease. The timiS of entry into the lease he give,'? as ' old Hay Day' a.nd the rents were said half-yearly on 23rd Heaember and 13th ".'HJ. Other than ttie tenant farmers, there a'ere the owner- occupier's who held their land directly from the Bishop in 11'39 and farmed it themselves. In 1600 the:.'e we L'O consolidated landiioldi.ngs alrea,dy in existence in the manor that coula be called compact frrms. The most easily recognisable are those in Bisliop Hiddleham township where the Bishop's Demesne was granted by lease a' early as 1585 to G-eorgs Freville (Fig. 3- ••). HcGording to Bishop Cosin's Sruvey, Spruceley and Horthleeze was also a leasehold farm in tiu; hands of Heorge Freville in l633- East House Farn was a freeholding not recorded on ttie Halraote Court records, but there is reason i;o suppose tliat this was also a compact farm ;rt the .;:eginning of the 17th century. Other lands had also been enclosed from the moors and open fields by that time, ^v'•lLch we 'e also being established as stable farm holdings. There were others, hoyjever, that were distributed tiiroughout the op-n fields end .astures. In the 1647 survey^ for example, Tjiomas Hiddleton's Coayholdlng was as follows: One cottage aith a garden Pasture for one cow in Foumnrds Pasture for 12 sheep upon the moor 2 Ridges in the .est Field 2 acres in the Hidfield upon Todd's Flat 1 acae in Eastl'iold called Hewton Landedge 2 Ridges cent, a acre at G-rimewell J'ole 71 2 Ridges Gont. V aora at North Close (Tate in the Ha.st Field 2 Ri l[';a3 in Snellthorns cont. i ;:ora 1 sere in I'jre ''noils osllsvi B Butts 2 Riigos in 'x.rth Lsozes 1 Dayle of •'eado.v Ijio^; in 3 tlnkingletoh One Gotta;-G One house sometimes of v/sste 10 ••ds. x 6 yds. One Gotta;;s sL^h. ;-s,slr Ons Gott.;/;G vi'lth l| acres o:' land Totcl rsnt 'i-s.Od. Ho also hald )'..GOS of Ian i freeti.old for Vvfii^h his rant was -21 .-Iq-.O, imsrovGd f'7.0.0. Before enolosas";, 3edrjefaold hs^ a much yrei,:tar proportion of its lanZ;: in usen fields, moors and -lestura t/ian had :.;ishop 'as,.,Qohair;, The: aa s no demesne I'aid in 3ed ;e;:';.;;ld, but by 1 b;>3 the dlobe had be^jn eiiclos ,)u formin;'- the somnast fai-m shov/n in a'igure 33- Rcfjrenoe h ; iilraa;d>' been 'iiala to the old enclosaaes also shown on thtit map ahioh >,Gse also Gompaea holdings at taat time. Although it has not bean aaisibls -^o reaonstrjot the foririer open fields and moors of Cornrorbh, the patterns of oanershia and farms seen in 1339 ('figa. a.s, ',;+.) ar-d asry Is rgely the ros'ilt of oaGlosar- in iCa'h It is ;.)robad)le, "?oaeve:s, that the fx-oeholdlng in the western pssrt of the toanship (Fig. 47-) -ass s,laa^.dy enclosed at that date. The ssdlerns of f^rms in 1039 in Sedgefield a,nd Gornforth, th^n, are the result of the ea.rly inolosucas of lopo and 1628 ,;ith only fe.v GompaGt fai'ifis eaiating before those datcss. On the other hsnd, mans' of tlia farms an Bishop hiddlehsin v/cre the result of enclosure thst had already taaen :ola.Ge by the ava.rd of 1693 (Figa. 3b, 41.). In Bishop bid:;ile;iam, farms vvhich are nuiBbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and in Figure 41 B:re Gorapt.ct ;;tyble farms on land th.: t v/as not inoluded in ths 1693 division andv.'c:3 orevlously enclosed. Thera -ff eve five farina that v,'ere created from tiie oovin f ield:> end pr,3ture;i v/hich by th;-:t. tirae ;vsre al:50 cornoaot. "iyhl^and -"ouse Farm ("To. 9) has achieved its size and compactness by amalgamction of IJiddle Field, East Field and North Close allotments. Farm "o, 3 is a compact hoidin ; composed of former Foumard allotments, a '.'es,t Field allotment ;md former old enclosure. Farm No. 15 corresponds ,vith a former Middle Field allotment. In the North Close, two farms have emerged from ti;e allotments there, taking in adjoining old onolosuros. The farm holdings whishare not compact snd are split are the vicarial glebe (No. 16) in the est Fiela and Foumards, and Fa..'m ?To. 1C occupying an old enclosure in the ./est Field, a Fcumard. allotment and t.YO cottage allotments in the ./est Field. The only compact allotment of 1693 th;it has been split is Ih-ljert Brabant's in the '.e t Field where four fields have been to.ken a..'ay to leave farm :\0. 15. In Bishop I'iddleham, the allotment boundaries as demarcate a in 1693 have persisted in the farm boundaries with very few axuraplos of allotments being split cither between farms or among landowners. None of the farms was owner-occupied in 1 r'39 snd the farm patterns reflect closely the owness'n.p satterns v.'ith no farmbeing made u') of lands of mors thsn one own<;;r. The cottage allotments are still in evisenatj as small slots in the former do.st and .'.est /^'ields. In 3adf:;efield, tne "iast Hose L'urm (T/o. 17) and Glower o'ei' T^im Farm (No. 15) (The Rectorial Glebe) in Figure 36, hsve the same bound• aries as they had before enclosure while farms numbers Zj and 9, .^"0^" example, coincide with the allotment boundaries. Other farms are mnde up from s com ination of aajscent allotments, for exs.mple, farms numbers 1w, 12, 8 • nd 13, or som.e allotments iis.vo combined with oarts of M.djvcent r.llotraents oi' former enolosu -as as can be s an in i'arms numbers 27 and 3- Farms nuraners 2 a.nd 4, on the ather hand, together form a former allotment a.nd, therefore, show evidence of a divided allotment as do farms nsimbers 25 and 26. In general, lua.vever, there is a remarkable degree of correspondence betaeen the allotment boundaries of 1636 and the farm boundaries of 1839. The enlargement or aecreasing of farm size seems to have been done valthin the framev/ork of the bound• aries made in the 1636 enclosare. The small holdings tend to be those that were allotted in the J^ast Moor where the cottare allotments persist. The greatest amount of fragmentation seem.s to be in the former osen fields near the villiige where there are a number of small holdings of two or tlirGe doses .vhich probably represent the aaddocks ahere horses would be grazed for where the horse was the motive newer there would be a need to have the paddook n e a, I' the dw e 11 i n g. r.s in Bishop I'iddleham, thie comofjct farm boundsries correspond closely vfith the ownerslrlp boundaries with the farms falling within the boundaries of oi/5naers,iiip slots, for a ^s.isiple, ''arms ^1+ and 32 in tlie South Moor holdln,:' of the Dov'ager, or farmis 23 and 24 W'";ich coincide with ownersbiia boundaries. There are a number of fr ams in Sedgefield that are not compact. Farm "o. 28, for exam.pla, is made up of two plots lying to the south of the village. Farm No. 27 ia also raa^le up of tv/o plots, one in t he former Couth Field a.nd the otlier just to the north of the village in th.a former J'^ortli Field. In each case ownership and occupation boundaries Goinci.je, and ''o. 27 ia owner-oocurjied by Thomas Da.'/ison. But not a.ll split fasrm.s are a reflection of the ovmershia Yielding. Nos. 2 and 7, for example, form a single farm tenanted by billiam Maxwell, one part being owned by Bryas 'walker while the other belongs to the Dowag-er Barrington. Fragmentation of this kind tends to be restricted to the smaller f arms snd they usually have a Isrger compact bloclc w i.th frag• mented a dditions. Some of tho larger farras also follow this pattern of a large compact farm with smaller detached holdings. They o re shown in Tables 3:4, 5, 6, where farms ond their sizes are listed. Sometimes farms have teen sbls to extend their compact holdings by acquiring adj¢ fields from other Isndowners. John Bowes has obtained two fields in the south east corner of his farm "o, 14 from the Dowager to add to those already held from 7illiam Russell. There are cases where fragmentation both in terms of the holdings and ownership are more scattei'ed than this. Oswald L'e^pgison, for e::amiple, holds a farm of 58A 1R 1P but he requires four sepfirate plots from four separate owners to achieve this as follo7/s and marked 'ON' on Figure 3a: Owner A R P Location The Dowager Viscountess Barrington 29 3 6 aout.h of Village ii.nne Lynne 2 0 36 /test I )art of Village ;Vi lli8,ra iiussell 17 1 28 // Guth 3ast of Village Nicholas Smith 8 2 21 South of Village 58 1 1 Conclusions The compact farms cf I839 seem to have derivea from the pattern of land-o-.vnership which was alread/" in existence long bofore the 17th century enclosures, or was iemaroated at that time. The allotments tend to h;.v-.i sersisted in their original boundaries sometimes amalgamating with o/hers to form If^rger farms. In some aasos, former allotments have been subdivia.ea but there 'are few of these. Tiio engrossing o./' the allotme,nts by thw l;;i'ga laado.wiers has tended to consolidate a.nd stabilize them as farm, units, but ctiajra h:.ve sl;;o been CL^nsolidated in th.. h;.aiJj3 of owne r-o 3c u p i e • s. The small holdinp^s of two or three closes and lass tend to reflect the cottage allotments at enclosure, althouj^h there are many small plots occupied by individuals close to the village which can be shown to be the divisions of enclosure allotments or small plots aire; d.7 enclosed at that time. The existence of small dispersed ownership slots in 1B39 enabled farmers without compact holdings to assemble a workahla unit even though it as scatte^-ed. Farm. Sizes in 1839 In 1932, Sir John Clapham showed that the small farm of less than 50 acres was the dominant production unit of the .agricultural economy of this country in 1B51ids the following figures show, however, if the acreage of land tilled b;/ these smiall farmers is the criterion used then their oositj.on is in no way dominant. Farmis in England and wales, 1851 Size in Acres No. Total /acreage Percentage 5-49 90,000 2,122,800 8.6 50 - 99 4A,600 3,206,500 13.0 100 - 299 6/i,200 11 ,015,800 34.6 300 - 499 11,600 4, J00,900 1 1 .0 500 ~ 999 4,300 2,841,000 1 1 .5 Over 1,000 771 1 ,112,, 500 4.5 ^ Sir John Glaphsin) If a, comparison is made beta'eo n these national figures in and these for Middleham I''ai or in 1839, it can be seen that in • s. greater proportion of the lands were worked by farms of less 100 cares which he considered small farms. Farms Less tjian j 00^ I.ere3 National Perofentage in I851 - 21 .6f" ,. Percentage of Land To,7nshiu — — —" '^J^cle^:' Oocupation Cornforth 56.15 Bishop Hiddd.eham 38.06 Sedgefleld 30.26 Clsoham also considered a farm of between 100 and 300 acres to be middling in size, from 50C to 500 r.cr-ss to be large, and over 50O acres to be erctensive. The imworta.r,-w; of the medium to large size farms in the ma.nor is apparent ivhen the aeroentage of land worked by farms over 1 00 ac 1"e3 is s een. Percentage of land in fa:irrar s over 100 acres Cornforth 4:/.''5 ••iTho : /'idalehcm 6l .94 Sedgefield 69.74 Of these farms seven were over 200 acres, five in Sedgsfield 'ui.; one each in Bisiioa Niddlsham! a.nw "ornforth, '..hile of those five in Sedgefisld two were over 3OO acres ( See T-bles 3:^1, 3:5, 3:6 and Figs. 36, Li and h->-.). The townshiw bound£:r'iss a:"ov.;a no barrier to the extension of form bounda.ries for the following f"; rm holdi.ngs both in Bishoo Niadlehara and ae.igeficld formed 3 it^gle fa^rm units of considerable size in 1639. Bishop liididi.eham Sedgefield Total Fsi-mer Farm No. A R P Farm No. A R P A R P James hockey 6 56 1 51 33 407 2 33 464 0 2i John Tpdl 7 76 2 39 36 257 3 30 33^^ 2 37 Michael Tinkler 3 129 1 39 21 326 0 15 455 2 14 John Bewick 4 1^df 0 38 39 20 0 33 164 1 21 These were all farms und.er the owne.rs}iip of ,,illiam Russell ;uid with the exception of /'ichael Tinkler's, formed compact units across the boundaries oi' tiie townslilfi. Nichaol Tinkler's farm was in two parts, one lyinp in the layton Lands and the othor in Foumards and the former ./est Field in Bishos Niddlaham. further examrjlc of a f;:.rm s tiaalslinj the township boundaries is triat of Isribello Stephenson -who not onl_y held 127A OR 4P (No. 57) of //illiam Russell's land in Sedgefield, but also 99A OR TP in Bradbury, adjoining this. Tho sreponderence of large farms is not only a fes.ture of the Bishoa's lands. Table 3:7 shows the large farms tliat were also in existence in the laruls of the other townshTwg in the sa.rlshes of Sedgefield and Bishop Niddleha.m in 1839. As can be seen, t};is table sunports well the f indings in the LT.ar»orial lands. Farmis of over 100 aicros tend to be a feature of lands held b; landowners. For e.x amnle, the follow:in g list shows the farm holdii on ..illiam Russell' s lands in the two p;srishes . Parm.er Township Number on Man A R Jcjiies LocKep" B!,'' 3 6 & 3B ii64 0 24 John Nail BM & S 7 S: 36 334 2 37 Michael Tinkler B"'' •-'<• S 3 A 21 455 2 14 John Bewick 3!J & S 4 'B 39 164 1 31 John Miller 193 2 36 Isabella Ste;shenson 3 & Brad. 37 226 0 11 a Edward Smith 55 94 0 21 John Brown 8 1 J.J 1 24 Jonatha.n Milliner 3 53 104 1 7 William Re.ce Q A 18 182 ! 31 Thos. Richardson 20 227 2 25 V/i Hi am T h o ran s o n 19 235 2 26 Thos. Smith I.'orden 236 1 37 Thos. Fleetha.m Mb) r den 162 0 24 J ohn Thompson Foxt. B: Sh. 377 3 22 Robert Smith Fo:ct. Sh. 207 0 2 Ralph Peacock Foxt. .3- Sh. 165 1 26 v»illia.m. Bayston Foxt. 3 Sh. 128 0 1 2 Matthew Frwell Foxt. 3: Sh. 103 0 16 .;m. Mav/lara Fowl;. 3: Sh. 397 2 29 John Applegarth Foxt. B- Sh. 290 3 32 Although William Russell is the largest of the landowners in the area, others with smaller but still oonsiderable holdings show a similar trenc in large farm sizes, for example, the Dowager Lady lilizabeth Barrington Anne Surtees and othsi-s that can be seen in Table 3:7- Another important influence in creating large, compact stable farms was the Church. The fa.rm of Nichcla.s Ridley (Ssdgef ield No. 15) was 263A 1R 38P in extent and was a large compact part of the rectorial glebe, still in the rector's hands in I839. In Eishopj T'iddleham the rectorial glebe had been anarcpriated and the surviving viG8.rial glebe (No. 16) was small (59 acres). Island Farm (No. 2), however, formed part cf the benefices of Pittington, Nartlepool and Castle 3den (158A 3R 1?). These institut/.onalised holdi.ngs formed very stable units for they could not be devised. 0//ner occupied farms formed only a sm.all aart of the tovmship l;:.nds, being most important in Cornforth where Charles Garthorne held a la age farm. There we -o two other ov;ner opcuaiers in that townshin, none in Bishop Hiddleham and five in Nedgefield as follows: Owner Occupiers in Niadleham I'anor, 1§39 Cwvner Township a R P i' a.L l!l J WJ . Charles Garthome Cornforth 216 0 17 7(3 Jose ah Lamas Co.anf crth 86 0 0 11 J John Poor Gornforth 41 1 21 12 Thos. Davison //edgefiold. 113 1 16 27 John iirrowsmith Sedgefisld 75 0 17 12 Benjamin Ord Sedgefiela 50 0 14 1 Jane RuthorfRard a-e ;^.gef leld 0 16 13 Tim 3 park 0 c. Sedgefielc/ 3 1 26 Ov Garth'smo -^nd Thomas Da.vison, did they possess large farms. Large compact ^arms tend.ed to o a, eature of tlie If ^'ge estates in the Middleham I/ai or and surroundj.ng tovaishias, whilw the smaller f: rms reflected the holdings of the smaller landowners• An impcrta.nt aspect of oa;nershia in the Bishon's townships, however, vvas the kind of tenure under which t he land was held. Tberefore, an exa.mination ;;ill be made of the nffect tenure haa on the development of farms tails in the mwi.nor. Lj.n d T o mir e It has already been stated, adien considering land-ownership pa'.ttern.:, that the influence of medj-cval tenuria.l practice continued lang after that oeriod came to a close. The strength of this influence is novBiere more aw.w,:w'arent than in the cxamaina.tion of the tenurlal patterns in the m.anor. In 1600 laxid was held from, the bishoo as lord of the mamor in terms of the m.edieval tenures of copyhold, leasehold ana freehold that have previously been c.escribea and these were to continue with onlp little change until I85O and bepond. In the eairl.y 17th century recoi-ds, thie .erbal descriations of the copyhold tenures are such thad; they are'very d.ifficult to identify on the {'a"ound or on the rr;ap. The 1047 survey, for example, describes Thomas Middloton's coayholding in terms that have been given elsewhere (p.70 ). But, less complex holdings than this are nonetheless vague 3 uch a.s: Elizr.ijt_h Botcherby One Goatage and 2 acres (7 oct 14^ Carl) One Tenement and 6 aares 1Cs.2d. The leaseholdings, on the other ha.nd, can sometimes be more soecific. That of Billiam Findmarsh is described as 'Certain lands and meadows called f'Ollands' with a rent of l^s.Od (B;4.10.0 improved) with a fat lamb ait pentecost cr 5'">'0d. in lieu.' This vagueness on the one hand and rela.tive clearness on the other was 'wi-obably inevitable for some holdings were in the open fields with rights to oasture aaaiwa.ste, a/hile oth.er3 we -e specific lands, already enclosed (usually leasehold) at the beginning of the 17th century. Coayhold tenures wo."e cf ve.ay old origin, being associated with the husaaindlands and cowtages. Leaseholdings, on the other hand, usuallp' OGCuaied land that had belonged to the bishop as the lord of the m.anor and was leased at a later date. Tenures in the open fields ana aa.stures were associatea .;i.th a. person rather than with a s 'ecifioally recorded plot of land. Rights were designaited bp- such words as 'cotta^-e', 'tenement' or 'messuage' which must have had a specific meaning to the tenants a-iad the co.r-t offlaials. Indeed, in Sedgefield, the cottaf;e holders received about five acres each for their cottages whenthe fields were divised in 1636. Tenements and messuages are a. little more difficult for they seem to refer to a landhiolding including a ho.mestall without ref eror.oe to size. The construction of the tenure maps (Figs. I^B, 47«) then, presented some wroblemis. The availability of the 1647 Parliamentary §urvey and the I662 Bishop Cosin's Survey along with Old Notitia Books, has enabled the tracing back of the leaseholdinga in some cases as for as I62O. These wore individua.l ownership blocks that were estebliahed at enclosure end t ose that were alrea.dp' 'n existence then, so the watte .'n of the lease- !iold tenures is partlp^ post-ev'closure and atrtly are-enclosure, i-.n 18if.O document known as 'Reed's Terrier' along with a map of Bishop Middleham CI033, is in existence, which aliovs the identification of leasehold lancui in Bishop Middleha.m, at that time, along a/ith those that had been enfranchised. This ha.s been checked against other sources and has been found accurate, so has also been used in constructing the pattern of leasehoLdings. The Falmote Court maps have also been another source for there are a number of instances where leaseholdings in Oedgefield ore ret recorded 'n the Ndtitia Books, but are on these 1857 maps. Sources for the construction of tho cooyhold nnd freehold tenure pB.ttei-ns are less reliable. The cosyhola distribution is t aken from tho Falmotc: Court mi: os ( dB57) end compared -ivith t he Call Rooks, but this is only the situation as seen by the Nalmote Court clerks in the mid-19th century, i/owaver, if the freeholdings oan be identified, then by a method of subtraction, those that are neither leasehold nor free• hold are coayhol:.. Fortuns-telp^, the major freeholdings in Sedgefield are the Rectorial Glebe, the Nardwiak Rstate and tho Layton Lands and can be identified, on the mas. Other fI'eejioldings have been identified from annotations in the enclosure award. 'The resulting pattern of copy- lioldings has been checked a gainst similar annotations on this avrard. In the case of Bishop Kiddleham, the distinction between copyhold and freehold on the Reed's Terrier has proved inaccurate, so evidence comes mainly from the Hclrooto Court maps and C;..ll Books. The resulting mass are as accurate as possible using the sources avtil.ablo. The striking contrast that emerges within the raiaior is the paucity of GODvhold land in Gornfoi-th a.nd the irewonderence of it in wedgefield. The copyhold tenures aaviear to be mai'o cow.-on on the ZCTULZ, -aaavels and boulder clavs of tlie Tees Lowlaniis ;.Rth a. progressiva reduction in its OGGurrenea until its relative a' sence is a.,en on tlio mtw!;nesia.n liawictone sera and th(j higher areas of t'ia dip :;lca)e. Conversely, t;;.ere is a decrease in tie amount; of leasehold Ipna, iat its nra. imum ocsuiwonce on tlie raa.gnesian limestone soils and at its mi.niaium on ilia glacial aa-lft oi' t,hu Tees Lov/lands. The i'raehcla estates £ ra rwRa i)l__ in Oeagufield .R.iWi "ts Na.rdwia!- £,nd La:,d;on Lanas and t'la itect^u'lal Glebe, but are a.lso found i.n Bishop ii adl. = hw: 'a as ""diw e a. 'e 0I-; aw lo:3a/. .a /\- 'wai iioldinga triat wore previously i.n open fields but w^jro ccaaaoi.id/ tew at enclosure. In Corn.forth, fraa/io/l.d L'w A.a . .-e .:Jtuati3d on the no.ath-,ieat :ieri a;Gra'- of the townshi ) and althouwh :.;e3 B A—-Bed. aa fi'eehold, carried a rant in the "wi.lmoto Court. The -ettern cf tawu:'w Ai PoBa'efield wa,; establlshad in I636 on enclosure (Fig. i+G) v.hen t'-ie allotmeniw; .vcr'e rpLven tanurial identity. The location af the t.:,wwrl;l Blocks ia a function of tiiat evant. The preponderance c';' cop,'/h.old. tenu'.'e ".'oula, seem ';o^e a iaaasw.r^: of the ea.rly medieva:.l development of the townshia wdiere husbandlands and cottages were gr.'nted to customa.ry teaaudas in tei'ms of this medieval tenure, irobably to be equated v.-ith t he suppgested planned, layout cf the village in the 12th century. It has also been suggested tliat the mid-1 Sth century increasas in proswerity and powulation sa.w the extension of the village, but it would also see the extension of arable land I rJcen from the waste. The Bnaidence of leaseh'old land is an inalcwLian of this wrocess, for new laaa taken in from the waste wa.s aroba.bly given on new lefwseliold tenures. The freehold tenures ai'a those associated wtth Berdwick and Laytwn, incluoing Nicholas Freville's allotments in the Best Field, an t tlie r ectorial glebe. In Bishop Middleham the lord of the manor had his demesne land, his park and his pasture closes which .aa-^-G all leased and forme ' stable blocks that can be traced back at least to the end of the 16th century (Fig. 38.). Other leasehold slots that were enclosed before I695 lay in the south eastern part of the tcamshia adjoining the Sedgefield lands. The Sp>rucely and Northleese fr.rm ai n be simil;;rly t'-rced baclr to the beginning of the 16th c enturpw Cther slots ware Besignated CJ.S laase- liold on enclosure anJ. occuay former open field areas along vjith copyhold plots. The division of tiie township lands into two tenures is aroba:bly to be exalained in the same wav as that of Sedgefield with leasehold tenures rearesenting land taican in a.t a latex' d:.te. This exclude,; the bishop's demesne and oark. The ocGuri-ence of freehold tenure is a little more complex than in a.edgcf ield. The vi^caria.l glebe is jresent but tliis is s slit between the /.'est //'ield and Foumard's Pasture and is copyhold. Blocks of free• hold land are wresent in the forraer oaen fields, notably Gilliam Bradshagh's Riddle Field and Foumard's allotments. This formed a large freehclding in 1693 along w-ith an old enclosure, formerly oart of the Rast Field, and a la.rge old enclosure in the e ast of the township. But the 1-rgest f reeholdinr'; is !A-:;t /^ousa, vNaish formed a. 5 table f;;rm in the east of the townsh,ip. The a esence of such a relatively large amount of freehold land in this township )rob.ably reflects the fact that in earlier days this was the bishop's vill and ir; a laaasuj-e of the rewards given to his servants. Other than the copyi-old tenure found in the former open fields a.nd given identity on enclosure, there a,re those copyhold/ngs that already had a tenurial identity by tha.t time. The most irawortant of these was the Isla.nu, Farm -.vhich lay to the south of the village. The orepondsranoe of leasehold land in Cornfcrth is probably due to the later date at which tiiese ];igher lanas were taken into cultivation. If this woi'e the mid-13th century and the blsiiop -.vas at that time j'anting lea.sas for lives and years in Sedgefieldand Bishop liiddleham, tiien this would be the case in Cornforth, Its disti'ibution is the result of enclosure CI628. Comparing the tanurial maos (Pigs. 46, 47«) a/ith the Farm and Ownership ma.pr; ^.ill show tha.t some fa.rma iiad a uniform tenurial identity and fcx'R'Du sta.ble territorial divisions, for example, in Bishop MidlLeham (Fig. 41.), IslsnO Farm (No. ?) w-r.8 copyhold and Sprucely (No. 4) WpS leasehold. In Sedgef icld (i'ig. 56.), Glower o'er "ira (No. 15) (the glebe) v;ao freehold, Raall Farm (No. 8) aas co ^yi^old, and Todd's New House (No. 9) was le-sehold. In Comfcrth (Fig. a-4.) there are numerous exa,mplas of frrms of uni.form lease'':old tenu:"e. On the other hand, so ne farms ha.ve lands of diffe'-'cnt tenures within their bound ries. In Bishop Niddleham, East h^ouse Farm (bo. 5) has both freehiold fnd ao,.;p3iold land, F;.rnles3 Farm (ilo. 8) has freehold, leasehold, and copyhold, while ''ighlana Mouse ('To. 9) hus leasehold m d Goppdiold. In Sedgefield, both hopper t'ow.se (No. 35) and iA-.st Close (tie. 17) are maae ua of loj seiiold and coap'hold. These are all sta.ble farm holdings so a.lthcugii unifojsm tenure may alay some ovrt in stabilizing a farm holding, a frrm having a diverse tenurial identity is not necessa.rily pa-one to f:ra.gmentaticn, for landownerstiip appears to be a mora poa/erful factor in doterrainin;-; the stability of a farm. That the medieva.l tenurial sastea: a'orsisted until 18OO is a m^^asure of the conservatism on the Bishopric estates djiwing the agricultural revolution. But'sven thaugh- thie bisbon obtained an Act of "~W;,rliaracnt in I8QO for the onfra.nohi3ina of leaseholdings, by 185O only affew had taken a dvantaa^e of it as can be seen from the Tenure I.Iaos (Figs. 4-6, 47) • At tin: -wesent s ta.to of rerieai'oh It is difficult to aooount for this failure, but cle*'rly the oawjtoiriarp tenures possessed a.n £ ttr;:;Gt Iveness .not aapa,.rent to modern eyes. C onclusions By 1839 a la,rge .roaortian cf the lands of I/iddleham //anor had fallen into the hands of a small number of large landowners. The ma,no.aial lands did not include Naadvilc/a r nd L„.--ton which lay in tiie hand;; of ./iRliam dusaell at that date, and fk^rmed t.a.. larg., stable freeholdings. In tiie rranoria.l lands, proper, a.lthough there vjas f ree- iiold land present, the graa.ter part o.f the holdings v/oro austomary tenaaac'os in coayhold. or leaseholds for lives or years. Th.. inti'Oiiuction of leases is s::^en as the attempt of the ;)islioa to retaain a g reater conta-ol over his lands tha.n was aoas/.iRa una.er copyholds of inheritance. These different tenures, however, :.;eem to hrv;; had little influence on tho processes of engi'ossing anu. t-io at^ttern of ownershl;) aaw/ f'rms t/ia.t /law oHorged ba' IS39 for lanaa of these wifforinp tenures seam to 'w v^j bean oaually aliena.hle. an.prossi.ng haal been a irocass a/siioa. haa enlarged raid made coinaot 0:ai.a.rohia /)loa/cs but it had a.lao astfbliaNied, uiidea- (Sio ovraea, Laip^.e acmpa.au farms aaRa;h. had t :ieir b aginnings In the ;illotmonts of thj 17th oantary anclosuacs. r. I'. Johnson"^ v/riting on the a.l£a,apearanae of the smc.ll la.ndowner, recognised this as a. genera.l trend frora baa b eginnina; of the 17th senturp- to 01785* G. .3. Ninga.y'" alpc^ co raants th.a t tiLe aiecline cf tj ie saiaLll ownexas a.nd sma.ll farmers in eneral must have >.a5curred b of ore I76O. It hr^s been shwan tiiat the awy natuaap of the allotments on enclosui-e, ba.sei on a division between ara.blo and. apsture, caajr tog cpxaitians for this ergrossijig to ta/fa place, .awards divided into two or more sma.ll .jlots a aerw.wiLau wi/'^ iculties for the small o.aiar, fo^' the (;osta of enclosing the :0.ots aiai rw.:icin • new fields .vere heavy. The resaonsij of the sm:-ll o.,'ner to the in;..bilitp to uia.intain his holding.; iwas either to sell one of them aar,. aitdi the caii/tal fp'ined to ma.inta.in th:; othe.', wJiich has 'Hjan successful in soaia cases, oa, in tiis extrem.a, to sell the v;;-:cle av/ard to th'-; 'li::rcc: ovixior ivho had tut; :i:'iJicncJ.;.1 r'blJ l.ty to dovslo;; the Irna. j.ccorcin ' to I', Johnson, t"ie ir^hLl o;vnor, viho often una,hle to ;rovi:lo co.oltol tc innrovo hio enoloifure, found it more eoonoifiical to sell his hxilhing -ind ?'ont c ff:rro fron. the loiaoo land• owner. Ti:ot ha 3C'inotiL.es f^U:d-lt tij han;; onto his lond is shojn by tho f.:-ot that flnanoial osfisionov- ,.s offcsn sol-,^o..,. by the t; ,i:in-, of ;:. mortyage. Tser'u is svidonce o.f this in 'Jed;:oold shes-e Thomas isriath noitgajse? iiis lana in i'/hd to hhohias fj.s.rton. This fell daring the 'leriod of the cLosis],/ .>s:;'a; of the 17th sentary rn > the first fifty yesr - s-P the iotn ;-^:stury „hic:-: dohnson oonsidess^. f i„tal the :srssll Ic.ndosi'er :,n;,;. e.ai'in;; .sh1 sh i^reir nur;d).;as declineu. isioh • sio^-t^iye ass •r'oh. h]y t to 'Ot r'ione;a to ni;.:d,.nt6in ni.s saGs:;nee as as caner- CGGLy.ier and to iinsrc/o his fi-ise 'but scmetirnes money s,r nee/h, ;i "'or nieant the faiss h a to he ,a:sba. ra.o willirrsness oi: ths ''haTrior cvmer-occupior to s^ J "ent fo"" a. fs-i'm x-ather than o,vn it nsa.e it eia.ler ftsi." U\-i laays landov/naa' to invest in Itu.d. Cn the other han;a, tiv, sr -Titad as.ins • '.d'ori the sale of liis land ijnabled the f-.rrajs on his nsshy—endosed, rented farm, ao osorv-te raoae sa.oGsssf::lly snd sell his rvjdace in the locad market centros. Tliis ;:a;ant good rcjturns to the o.vnors In the form of runts, :2;jkina investment in l^.nd -•rs.f : scdd-s . In tho ohiftin-, ana rssi:il- ohrncin- sosiety of fingland, durin- t"\is "^oriod, oanershiss of the land had Ion;- been consid!3red trio or.ly stable and oertain oroof cf sosition, and this attitude inoseased duriny the 18th G eJitury. So^^^al oosition, however, could be expensive a'a^n the duties of sheriff and J.?, had to be undertaken, not to mention the cost of belonging to society. Those oaning moderately-sized est:tes could 3onietiir.es find this a strfiin and woae also forced to sell to lijrgev ov;nero. The economic ana social a^:o~:o'c3 of cvnors-iip ware, tiierefore, very important in est-:blishirig thu js.ttorn that had energeci in 1339. i'he gro'.Yth or the large o,«i,ar3hip blocks cj.l tho cj,mlni:ihin;^ of tiio nuniber of small o\inoc3 vVc-s a irooezs '.Yell mo.rkoa in tlio l;o,nir;:ii os of Bisho;; Mld(ile;iam t:nd •••'edfjOfi jld, t.nd al:^o \.o ome e;:1:ont in Z- njj'^ rth. In the last m^jntion;;!, ho.vever, tho major land hold,;r3 the area :iad no land and tho larger holdings thsro v;era only niodeL-ate hy comoa/'is on with bhoso of Rassell, idio Doa-ger ':nd art;,;as. Tlio influonaa o? the 1. r^p; lOTdovaiors h;: a also b cen shown in the size of ftirrns fo:- the l:rgafb,rins Lend t.-. he a featare of tho Iprgo landl'ioldings of tho !-najor landowners , ai th Gornfortii, aJiere tho najor ls.,ndiiold.er3 j^.ro absent, hovin/; s snialls^^' :)rov)orti'-:n of it-; l-;.nds given over to Irrge fsrras of over 100 fiores. Tonurial oustom Ghan,-;ea little vluain;- the a:;rL0d, -.vith the rcajor inno/rtion being the linking of .. _.a;ure v.ioh ;;n enclosed Dlot laaLii^^r than an open field ]iolding or a right to aa^tura, although by I6OO this h': d alreaoy h.,ppancd in sG::.e l:.,nds previoasly enclosed. Copyiiolds ::f inhei'itanse ;:i:a l.,;s,sjs _'SJ:" lives .aid years aei'e ;-.lss; Oy established bp 1 hh: ;.n,d /OS h. • ae 1. 'nti V'5d \sl,th onlp' :aall nuritaer ttfzing ; .ivaitc;„go of ^" fx • isc'iiseaent. fhe^ie teraires isiist iOiVe been .....dvsntages..si to ;h:e ten^ssSs J foi" ts.oae seesis to 'save oecSi li'L.tle 'a^e:,as'.a' ^ .'•sr oasa. ;s '..ad they fi raad :aLo,ble institut'.on Lhaasugsssat the peri:, d of the ^sarisaltsiral Ilevolutb:n. Their .list ''.batian s-aaa.; to hsve'bean of little signaflcanoe to the ;a;grse of coniaactness of iiclding., or form,s, for shlle -"ssiy of tf)e stsble eija;lossa 1': r;"''s a.a- jls^' ai;narial unifosisity, I tiiat fors! stsbl'; anits bat se Lanarially divoiaja. Chapter j Rsforenoes • . Mr. &. !i. Sladdon, Clerk of the halmote Court 2. R. h. BUTLIN, 'Field Systems of horthumberland and Durham' [jtudies of field Systems of the British Isles h. 11. IT. Baker and R. A. Butlin (dds.), GEuiibridge 1973 3. J. BiilLs-iY, &eneral Viea of the Agriculture of Durham County. Board of Agrioulture, London 1310 4. h. E. T /•TS, * Ii Handlist of English Enclosure Acts and Awards Pt 26' 'Durham Field Sj^stems and Enclosure Movements' proc. Soc. Antiqu. IJewcastle, X 1943 ?P 119-140 E. M. LSOMARD, 'The Inclosare of Common Fields in the 17th century' Transactions ^of the Royal Historical Society, TJew Series, Vol. 117, 1905 SIR J. GLAPIIif;!, An Bconomic history of Ivodern Britain, Cambridge 1932 A. H. J'''T'SOM, The Disappearance of the Small Landowner, London 1909 fr. i']. MI MCA Y, Enclosure and the Small Farmer in the Age of the Industrial Revolution. London 1968 Deoartment of Palaeography and Diplomatic, Durham University, 5?alraote Court Subsidiary Documents, Abstracts of Title, Box Mo. 3, G-eorge Barrinaton 10. Halmote Court Miscellaneous Books, Motitia Book Mo. 12, Stockton iVard. CHiiPTER FOUR FIELD SYSTEMS AND LAND 90 Field Systems The field boundaries on the 1^39 Tithe mays and the first editions of the Ordnance Survey Maps in 1857 show that by the mid- 19th centus-y the process of enclosure had produced a pattern of fields very different from the open fields and moors that had been present fit the beginning of the 17th century. In those ore-enclosure days, travellers through the south eastern part of Durham County saw it as a county of onen arable fields. Blome, in 1673, described east Durham as the most champion part of the county ana the south as the most fertile part. Ggilby, in his Itinerary, in 1675, showed the county in open arable along the road fi'ora '..hitby to the north. That the lands of Bishop i'iddlehara and Sedgefield were no exception can be seen from the reconstructions of these fields, oastures and moors in Figures 38, 53, and tables and 3'3, showing the aoportionment of land at enclosure. This process has alre,ndy been discus ;ed earlier in this vrork as has ths fact that there is no copy of the Gornforth enclosure award available to a,llow a simila'." construction for that township. R. A. Butlin cornnants on the frequency of the occurrence of three-field townships in physiographically favourable locations, notably on lower alluvial flats of the Tees, the Nagnesian Limestone plateau and the te;'races of the d'ear. Patches of lighter soils within the glacial drift of the Tees Loa.'lands may well be another location favour• able to their development for Sedgefield also shows signs of a former three-field system a.lthough by 1636 there -were seven arable common fields to be divided on enclosare. Bishop Middleha^m, on the other hand, occupied one of Butlin's favourable 3 ites on the "agnesian Limestone dj.p-slope and here a three-field system was in existence in 1693. Bishop Middleham. The tovvnship lands of Bishop Middleham in 1693 consisted of the following: Bishop Middleham Townshio l693 Ooen Arable Fields A R P 'Jest Field 166 - 3 2 Middle Field 154 0 14 3;.st Field 82 3 15 403 2 3^ CoBimon Pasture North Close Letch 3 3 36 North Close 75 1 4 Merriknowles 20 3 25 Foumard:;; T'asture 118 1 27 218 2 1 2 Old Enclosures, Village tofts, Lanes, ".'aste, etc. 1465 1 4 TOTAL 2087 2 7 From this and from reference to the map (?ig. 38) it is evident that much enclosure had already t alcen place by that date, for only 622 r- 1 acres out of 2087 acres remained in common. Butlin states that much enclosure took place in these lowland tovmships of Durham in the medieval period and this vfould seem to bo the case in Bishop Middleham. For example, enclosures aapear to have been taken out of the open fielcis. The demesne arable, Iving to t he north of the village can be seen to contain three parts of the open arable fields, if their boundaries ai*e urojeota.i soatli (Fig. 42.). Vfa.en these three enclosures were made is not known but probably coincided with t h.o granting of a lease by the bishop which post dated the abandonment of the Manor House. 92 It was a common practice, in the open field townships, to put lands into severalty which meant bringing dispersed holdings of a person into fevv'er pieces and freein;;; them frtim all rights of commonage. It is interesting to note that the 1647 Survey describes this demesne arable as, 'Throe several platts of arrable land '^ There is also reference in the 1693 enclosure award to Robert Brabant's -^iast Field allotment -.vhsre an allov/ance for a highway is made to lead to, 'several closes formerly enclosed'. Another kind of early enclosure was the Lammas close where sometimes largo parts of common fields were enclosed by quickset hedges, but had to be throvm open to pasture at Lammas. There is reference to Laimnas closes in the enclosure avmrd where John '.yood's 'h'est Field allotm.ent has an allowance for a highway so that John Crosby can get to, 'his Lames close (formerly divided) in and through John Hutchinson's Lames close'. But not all old enclosures /.'eve taken out of the former arable fields. It is evident that by 1693 most of the common waste had been enclosed for there is nothing in Bishop Hiddleham that equates with the 3ast and South Moors in Sedgefield. Only Foumards, North Close, North Close Letch and Merriknowles remained. Large enclosed farms had been established in the south and eastern pairt of the township - Island Farm, Sorucely and ?]ast House - wdiile in 'che north east Farnless, the Bishop's pasture closes, had been enclosed along with other closes in the hands of Robert Brabant at that time. The remaining major enclosure was the Parkland, part of the demesne, and lying to the south of the village. So, although 1693 saw the onolosuro of three common arable fields and common pasture in Bishop ''iddleham, it was the final act in a process that had been undorv/ay for some time. 93 Sedgefield The enclosure of Sedgefield occurred in 1636, 57 years before that in Bishop Middleham. The map, therefore, represents a field system at an earlier date, j.t that time there v;ere the follov/ing open fields, common ns.stures, and .-rastesj Sedgefield Township 1636 Open Arable Fields A R P North Field 342 1 4 Ryall Field 528 1 15 Hauxley Field 272 2 19 vVest Field 134 0 0 South Field 117 1 1 Dolliop 90 1 13 Gramyre 70 2 30 Am.. Common Pasture The East Close 150 0 6 150 Common ..aste South Moor 589 2 7 East Moor 4OB 1 56 IO78 Old Enclosures Incl. Layton, luirdwick and the G-lebe Village Tofts Lanes, U'aste, etc. 2675 1 29 TOT/J. 5259 0 0 The open arable fields of ^edgefield have less incidence of lands being enclosed in severalty but examination of the map (Fig. 33.) 'will show that there were early enclosures present in the North and South Fields, TIauxley and -last Moor, although a number of these were in peripheral positions and may represent earlier asserting. The existence of the almost severed plot of the Hauxley Field to the South ;;est of the village suggests that the portion of the glebe there was a severalty taken from the Hauxley Field. But the striking feature of this town• ship was the seven open arable fields v;hich are orobably the result of exp4insion in the 13th century which would coincide with the building of the church and the extension of the village, dhatever their origin these large open fields would certainly oairn for Sedgefield the description of a chamnion landscape. The iiast Close is seen as an enclosure of good-quality grassland comparable to the Ox closes referred to by R. A, Butlin as being a feature of such townadiios. This was common pasturage and was usually situated between the common arable and the common waste. It wa.s enclosed to prevent animals from straying and was stinted. The South and East Moors were the common waste that still existed in this populour tovmship in 1639, an area over v^hich more inhabitants than those included in the enclosure a//ard would havo had interests. There was no demesne Isnd in Sedgefield but in 1636 the enclosed glebe formed a considerable feature of the township's landscape. The reconstruction of the 17th century fields of Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield portrays a system of cultivation that was essentially medieval in character. Apart from the features aire; dy described, examination of the field boundiiries of some of the farms previously enclosed shows that a three-field system: was probably in opeaation there aswell. Farnless farm (Fig. 61.) shews a division into three fields, i.e. d'est Farnless, Middle Farnless and North Farnless, with Two Little Garrs as pasture or meadow lend. The field called the G-; rths seems to have boen taken out of North Farnless probably when the farm 95 stall moved there from the village. The demesne arable is also divided into three fields which reflects the taking in severalty from the three open fields. There is also a suggestion that Island Farm may have been divided into three major fields with its pasture in the Garrs, but by the end of the l8th century (Fig. 60.) the desire to apportion fields to tho various clergy had obscured the former boundaries. The early enclosure of these farms and the taking in of land in severalty, as -well as the lammas closes, al;"eady signalled a breakdown of the medieval system. Enclosure, when it came in the 17th century, was an act indicating a revolution in terms of territorial organisation. This produced a new pattern of ovmership boundaries out of the open fields and common pasture which became fixed, and within which new methods of agricultural practice v/ould evolve. Changes within the two hundred years follovfing this are seen \)y R. A. Butlin ^ as the result of population pressure, increasing market demands for beef and butter, and a general intolerance of the deficiencies of the old system. There are also the behavioural aspects to be considered, for during; this pei'iod there was a desire for the major landowners to enlarge their estates, and for new owners to acquire large estates, in a society where landed gentry lield an exiilted social sosition. There was also the urge of the individual farm.er to improve his lot through his own efforts, a grovvdng attitude that was to lead to the laisser-faire thinking of the 19th century. 2 Phyllis Deane and ,V, A. Cole have s.uggested that the population of England rose from G5-4 million in 1700 to 8.6 million in l801. The rate of increase in population in the parishes of Bishop Iliddleham and ^edgefield during this period 7;as less than this as can be seen from the following estira^tes for the mid-17th century^ and the census figures for 1301 and I851. Population of the Parishes of Sedgefield and Bishop Middleham Parish 1801 18^ C entury —^ Sedgefield 1459 175^ 2192 Bishop Middleham 504 738 1719 TOTAL 1963 2494 5911 By 1801, the manorial lands were not directly affected by the coal• mining activity that was taking place in the northern part of the county and where probable population increases of over 100 per cent between 17OO and 1800 are estimated. Althougl:^ by I85I , the development of the concealed coalfield was being reflected in the populations of the townships, particularly that of Goi'nforth. But the increase shovm by I8OI is a measure of the increased agricultural activity that v,'as successful until 1800 in feeding the growing local population at a sufficiently cheap price to allow incom.e to ie left over for spending on goods being produced by the young m8,nufacturing industries.''^ At the sa.m.e time, t e farmers were able to make profits to enable investment in their farms and pay a good return to the laodowners who were able to provide the cauital for the growing industrial enterprises. The 17th century enclosures in South East Durham, howeve vrere not the result of the demand for more grain from^ the growing Industrial areas, but rather the realisation of the need to take the continually cropped and exhausted lanbs out of arable clutivation and put them under pasture. Nay and grass froro th_e newly enclosed farms helped feed the grov/ing horse, pcjulaticn and provide dairy products to the local morket centres. Although in the early nert of the 18th century some markets were further afield for butter was being shipped from Newcastle upon Tyne and Stockton upon Tees, ' 97 This suggests that I6th century agricJlture in South East Durham was successful in meeting the needs of the growling pooulst'on. There is dcubit, however, whether its sractices were in the nature of those associated with the Agricultural Revolution. Two of the chief criteria 5 Eric Kerridge uses for assassins; the iigrioultural Revolution are the substitution of up-and-dcwn husbandry/ for serm.anent tillage and permanent grass or for shifting cultivation, amd the introduction of new fallow crops aaid selected grasses. RPbert I. 'Todgson"'' comm.ents in reference to the c|;riculture of Durham in the 16th centurjy, that, 'Efforts to improve the all-round serformance of agriculture are hard to find and the range of new husbandrp^ technicues found as late as 185O is disapsointing. Turnias and sotaj.toes were grown only in a limited area at this date and most of the county maintained a basic three-course rotation with be.re fallowing.' Evidence for this can be seen in Fi.gure 56 where the crop rotations for farmis in the La^'-ton Lands from 1771 to 1776 is reproduced, showing a simpde three-course rotf,tion including a fallow. In Kid(IIehf.mi East I'ouse Farm, in 1812, however, clover and parsnips were being included in the crop rota.tion, although fallow was still present (Fig. 57')• So although a, general intolerance of the deficiencies of the old system might have been motivation for reorganising the township lands into com.pact farm.s, such intolerance did not extend to the cultivation practices that had teen inherited for there was no abandonment of the three-course rotation including a bare fallow which was, in all probability, practised in the open fields before enclosu.re. Other chief criteria suggested by Kerridge'^ for assessing the Agricultural Revolution were a) the floating of water meadows, b) marsh drainage, c) manuring and d) stock breeding. In an area where there is m.uch low-lying, ill-dr-ained land, the need for drainage was greater 98 than that for meadoy/ floating and there is much evidence of drainage channels in the Carrs on the 1857 Ordnance Survey maps. Of the practice of manuring in the townships there is no information, and v/hile there is no local evidence of breeding experiments, they were a feature of the region, for in 1796 the Colling brothers bred the famous Durham Ox. Using the criteria of Kerridgc, the agricultural revolution in south efist Durham cannot b e seen as a hyper-dynamic event, for other than the change of field systems on enclosure, processes of change proceeded very slowly with m-edieval a ttit .ides lingering well into the 19th century. By the 163OS, the ability to exploit the concealed coal seams was a factor that tended to discourage farmers from improving their husbandry for often the damages paid to oaners and tenants for permission to take colliery workings and way leaves through their lands was greater than the rental of* commercial value of the land. Robert I. 4 Hodgson quotes the instance of the Dean and Chapter of Durham receiving £/ti+,000 for an eleven years lease of the Rainton Colliery in I832. The success that agriculture in south, east Durham achieved between enclosure and I85O seems to have rested on tLie ability of individual farmers and landovaiRrs to respond to market demands in an area, where growing industrial activity led to increasing population vihich provided a local market for produce which tended to be dairy andicef. The part played by enclosure in such a situation was crucial, for without the privcite, clea.rly demiarcated farms, such a response by the farmers could only have been on a more limited scale. Field Patterns in 1839 Of particular interest to the geograoher is the change tha.t took place in the territorial org8.ni5ation of the m.anorial lands bet»Yeen 1600 a.nd 1850, for the field boundaries of 185O -,vere quite '.iifferent from, those in 16OO. The changes in boundaries, however, should be seen as evolutiona.ry, rather t}.-ian revolutionary, for the pattern of fields in 1839, m.apped in Figures 37, 42 o.nd 45, emerged from a very lengthy process of a:";ricultural, social aid economic change. It is extremely difficult to devise a precise chronolog.y for the evolution of this 19th century landscape fi'om that of a medieval system, but there would seem to be three important stages to consider when tracing development between 16OG and I85O. The first of these is the pattern of fields that had developed v/ithin the tovmship boundaries by I6OO before enclosure. By then, although the lands of Bishop Ididdleham and Sedgefield displayed characteristics of champion field systems, there was also evidence that enclosure had already taken place. Cn the one hand, there was a pattern of open fields, pastures and moors that, anart from severalties and Lammas closes, had not been divided, and on the other, a pattern of enclosed farm^s 'within which field aatterns had developed by 1600. Of the latter, there is scant evidence, with the boundaries of 1839 oroviding the miajor clues to patterns then, although in some instances there are early estate plans, but these do not usually pre-date about 182O, some of wriich will be examinoicl in Chapter 5« The pattern of fields at 1636 in SeGgefield and 1693 in Bishop Hiddleha.ra are shown in Figure 33 and Figure 38, with the boundaries of old enclosed lands shown where aoosible. The second stage came when the allotments in the open fields, pastures and wastes were demarcated by boundaries. These enclosures foi'med t-ie ov/nership blocks from which farms were to develop during the next two hundred years. Some were to remain intact, some v/ere to be joined to others, while in some in3ta,nces they were split and attached to other allotments and old enclosures, a arocess vdiich has 100 been discussed elsewhere. These are sho'/m in Figures 34 and 39. The thrid stage was tho iivision of the allotments into fields by the owner or tena.nt farmer, a process which vms not a once-snd- for-all act, for changes in field boundaries took place throughout the two centuries, for example, there are differences bet-wean the I839 Tithe Maps and the 1857 first editions of the Ordnance Survey. The 1839 patterns are shorn in Figure 37 and Figure 42. Perhaps a fourth stage shc;uld be included for although in I839 many of the fe>.rraholdings had village olots linked to their tenures (Figs. 51 and 32.) very few farmstalls remained in the village. At some stage after enclosure a farmhouse was built on the enclosed allotment. There is no evidence that this vYas an immediate response to enclosure. It is more probable that the farrastall remained in the village with a temporary structure on tJie newl;/ enclosed allotment, which would provide shelter foi' the farmer, his labourers, stock and such equipment as he possessed, v/hich is what haapens in the small garden allotments of today. Trie construction of the farmstalls on the allotments was probably the result of I8th century agricultural prosperity already dlscusned for many of them were built during that century. The movemient out would seem to cost-date the dem.arcation of the fields, for the farnsta^ll usually occupies a sm.all close taken from the coi^ner of a larger close. The fields in 185O, therefore, formed a composite ;oattern of boundaries, '-'•'hese included a) those of the former open fields, b) those of the old enclosures such as tho severalties anc the lammas closes, and c) those of the 17th century enclosure allotments, 'within these hard appeared the enclosed, fields that were the result of the division of the farm holdinf;s so cre;?.ting the oatchwork pattern that characterised the rural landscape in the m.id-19th century. Those for 10^ Bishop Middleham, Cornforth and Sedgefield can be seen in Figures 37, 42 and 45• The recognition of 17th century field, boundaries that pre-date the earliest m.aps by some two hunrh^ed years p'^esents problems. The 17th century enclosure p.wards were v erbal 'n description and can only be based on the boundaried recorded on the mid-19th century Tithe and Ordnance Survey Kaps. The 17th century descriptions ore of allotments rather than of the open fields themselves, but examination of the 1859 field mac of Sedgefield (Fig. 37.) v.'ill show that there are instances of long continuous boundaries ? seem to have been made. Between iforth Field and Ryall Field (Fig. 33.) for example, there is a continuous boundary v.diich is slightly broken by angular bends in the middle. There a.'e also si.milar continuous boundaries visible betw-een JOouth Field and Nauxley, and between i'auxley/ Dolliop end the East Moor, The township roads and lanes form obvious continuous boundaries but only in a few cases do they correspond with the f ormed open field boundsries, for example, Hauxley and Cramyre (south of the village) and Hauxley and the Glebe. But subsequent boundary development has obscured any clear indication of 1636 fields among the I859 aatterns, a situation not heloed by the inaccuracies of retrospective projection of the bO'.mdaries. Evidence of the allotment boundaries, however, is much more apparent, jieferenco to the I839 map will show that there are clear patterns of fields that hs.ve boen laid out within the allotmient boundaries of 1636. These en be seen in the former Ryall Field, North Field, South I-oor and East I'ioor, Such clarity of boundaries is not so easily seen in the old enclosed lands, other than where they abut the allotment boundaries. This is particularly so in the south east where the glebe, the East Close and the Layton lands lie. But there 102 is & tendency for these lands to display irregular shaped fields that Gontraat v^Lth the regulr-r fields found elsewhere in the tovmship and so can be seen to form ;m extensive area of i:rregular boundaries quite aifferent I'roru tnose that ;;av.= dv^vcac-^cd in the former open fields and moors. Although irregulai'ity may form a significant jj&rt of the field pattern of Sedgefjcld, It is not a scrii^ing feature of the field lattern of Bishop Middleham (Pig. 42.)- ^^e fields in the former open fields and indeed the greater part of the township, display great regularity. The irregular fields are found in the east in d'illiarn 'f.rgdsliagh' a old enclosure, part of the Parnless demesne an ft the lands of the Poor of Sedgefield, occunying the drainage ohannel tothe south and east of Island Farm. The former open field boundaries between the ".Ve.rt and hiddle Fields and the Uiddle and iiast Fields (Fig. 5'i.) are more easily traced and here the roads have alayod a much more important part as boundaries. But even thou-ch the boundary batv»'een Founerds and the ,iest Field lammas closes is not m.arked by a road, it is still clearly seen in the I'ield pattern. Patterns of fields ?/ithin the allotment boundrries are easily discernible £Lnd, as in Sedgefield, tend to establish the existence of these bound:ries. Of the Itnds formerly enclosed, clear boundaries can be seen in Island Farm and the demesne arable, v/hile the clearest of all is 'che Park, fo" this is still surrounded by the stone wall described in the survey of ^b!^'/. In Comforth (Fig, 45.), there are many signs of continuous boundaries but vjithout supporting evidence it is difficult equating these with former open field boundaries. There is also evidence of field patterns valthin the I839 farm boundaries vdiich, if the oattern 103 in Bishop Kiddleham and Sedgefield is follov/ed, would represent the enclosure allotments. Irregularity of field shape is more nrevalent in the western yvrt of the tovmship in the freeholding, an occurrence which seems to correspond v/ith the irregular fields in i^edgefield, seeming to suggest that this part may have been an early enclosure. Field Shapes in I839 The re were tv/o categories of field shape in I859. The first was the geometric shape with straight sides. As can be seen from the maps some of these could be triangular in shape but v;ero morj often rectangular in form viith the proportions of tctv/oon 1:1 and about There is much evidence of these regular fields In i where they rre s emetines fcrraod from elongated rectangular fields that have had boundaries run across from side to side. Such regularity of layout is found mainly on the lands that were enclosed from the open fields, p;;.stu.res and v/astes in the 17th cent-iry and usually lie v/ith their long axes at an angle to the road (usually right). Others are long and narrov/ and &'"e the result of smallholdings of strips, riggs or lands being enclosed in the 17th century, for example, in Bishop Middleham Bast and 'Jest Fields. The curious ivedge-shaped arrangement of fields to the vest of Oornforth village (Fig. 45») is probably the area of a former arable field or pasture, for there is fragmentation of ownership end occuncticn (Figs. 43, 44.). The second category v/as the irregular shaped fields and it has already been shc.vn that those are found mainly on the lands that had already been enclosed by the 17th century, or on the freehold estates. The irregulc^rity found in I.ayton, the glebe, and the liast Close su.'pyjsts enclosure that was piecemeal as opposed to the regular pattern elsev/here v.'here the boundaries were laid down contemporaneously. Often an irre?-- ular boundary is the result of a controlling factor such as a stream 104 or drainage channel, for example the fields belonging to the Poor of Sedgefield in Bishop^ Kiddleham and those bordering the Coxhoe Beok in Gornforth. Others abut roads, lanes or tracks, or foi-rcer old boundr.ries (e.g. open field) while some j^epresent eai'lier oiecameal enclosure. There are some, howeve", that are irregular because of the whim of the owner or sur-veyor. i'hero is a rectangular block of fields in the former Hyall Field in Sedgefield v/hich seerns to s-i-'-jfjest this for the pattern of irregularity can only have been a deliberate attempt at non- Gonformity. Field Sizes in IB39 im iinalysis of Fields of pne__Acre_ 8za3_ Over in the Townships of Sedgef J.eld Bishop Iliddleharn and Oornforth in 1839 Field Size Tovmship La,nds (i.e. in fields of 1 acre and over) " ~ Sedgefield Bishop Middleham Cornforth 1 to 5>5 acres 25 .68 19.14 28.62 5.75 to 10.5 acres 37 .47 45.03 58.22 10.75 to 15.5 acres 19 • 31 25.27 12.18 15.75 to 20.5 acres .^5 8.00 0.97 Over 20.5 acres 5 .71 2.56 TCTaL 100.00 100.00 100.00 i.s can be seen from the above ttd)lo the most couimon field size was between 5.75 and 10.5 acres with 37.47:% ^^5.03:" f.nd 53.22;:' of the lands of Sedgefield, Bishop Middleham and Gomforth being under fields of tliis size. Cf the fields of 10,5 acres fiiid^ under the percentages of the lands occupied v/ero as follov/s: 63.1 Sedgefield), 6/'f.l7>-' 10f (Bishop lliddlehara) f?nu B6.84;.''(GDrnforth). Fields of this size formed the greater pa-oportion of the fields of Gornforth, vfith only 17 of them over this size and by far the greater num.ber of these were fields of less than 15 acres. The other two tcmships, however, show a much higher incidence of fields of 10.5 --cres and over, 56.'':'5';'' for ^jedgeficld and 55•83: for Blshoo I.Iiddl.3ham. :7hat these percentages meant in numbers of fields is illustrated below where the analysis of the larger fields among landovmers suggests that larye fields tended to occupy the lfii.,ds of the 1; rge landowners. An Analysis of the fiel.tia of lO.p --ores and Over in the Tovmships of n^lrileham Manor To.mship Landcvrncr wo. of fields Total 10.5 acres -j.na over Sedgefield ,.1111 am Russell 82 ...)ow&ger l,B.i}^/ Larr'ington 20 The G-lebe 1 2 The iiest S 122 Bishop "addleham ;;illiam Russell 13 Anne Surtees 11 Eliz&hoth -d;llhe;:d 7 The Vicars of Pittington, etc. 5 G-eorge \rneatlay 4 Poor of Sedgafield 4 The de-t 6 50 Gornforth T/iomas ITaswcll 9 Jane TP^tes 3 The Rest 5 17 A. R. n. Bale or and R. A. Butlin' otata that the distribution of -106 the smaller fields tends to follow the distribution of the better quality pasture, trable ana meadows that are usually found near the settlement. Although there is evidence in the field ma.ps of Sedgefield of this being the case, there is also evidence of small fields being distributed throughout the lands, similarly, there are l. rgefields near tlie village, t'he allotment boundaries seem to htve had the greatest influence on the distribution of small end large fields, for it is within these boundaries that decisions on field sizes we 'e made and carried out. Examination of the South Field and ''outh Moor (Figs. 34, 37.) J f'or example, show that allotment boundaries there have greatly affected the aistributlon of field sizes. I'ut simdl.'-.r effects can also be seen in the h'orth, -""^yall end }:auxley Fields ana dolliop, while in the A^st I'cor the cottage allotments have created a distinctive block of small fields. The largest fields have been shown to be in the lands of the more iriiportErt landowners and reference to the nE^' vdll show the areponderanoe of lai'ge fields in Iiardwick, Lcyton, liast Close, the Rectorial G-lebe and the South Koor holdings of the Dowager laid ,?illiam Russell. In Bishop liiddleham (Fig. 42.) rnd Cornforth (Fig. 45.), there is also a tendency for smallor fields to be near the village, but it is not very marked for, as in ;jedgefield, they occur throughout the tovmships. In Bishop i'iddloham, as in iiedgufield, the more frequent incidence of large fields can be associoted with the large landlioldings as caji bo seen in --ighlrna Farm, Isltnd Farm and Farnlass. large fields are not so common in Gornforth but they fgain can be associatea ..Ith the large holdings, for example, Thomas Aaswell's lands in the vrest of the township. Farm and allotment bound-ries seem to be controlling frotors in the distribution of field sizes, for as can be seen from excsminstion 107 of the maps (Figs. 36, 41 :;n(1 44.), unifcfra patterns of small fields occur vdthin farm or allotment boundaries, as do uniform patterns of larger fields, vdiile in other cases there are small, and large fields present. It is orobabls that the allotments that contain oatterns of uniformity of size represent the division after enclosure for such regularity is suggestive of contemporaneous layout. Those farms and allotments that show diversity of field size may be the result of developing agricultural practices during the 17th and l8th centuries which demanded fields of varying sizes or it is equally probable that they show a different nerception of future requirements by the 17th century farmers when they were laid out after enclosure. It is suggested by Baker and Butlin' that larger fields in town• ships tend to be found on thd poorer land. This being the case, it might be thought that tliese large fields in Middleham "lanor would be given over predominantly to pasture, but this V7a,3 not the case as the following table shov/s: Middleham Manor, land-use of fields of 10.5 aci-es and over Township Number cf fields , , _ Vtood or J T Arable G-rass •=— Total Furze Sedgofield 70 47 5 122 Bishop Middleham 32 17 1 50 Gornforth 12 5 - 17 Total 114 69 6 1O9 This brings the disoiission to the use of the land. P F. G. Smmerson' sugijests that £.ny attempt to visualise the land- use patterns of the medieval townsliip must allow for at least five components. These are a) the village which consisted usually of dwellings clustered together on small home closes, b) the arable fields, c) the meadow, d) the waste or sonmon, and e) the manorial demesne which was usually a compact area nea:' the uwellings. It has been shown that at the begiiiniu • o',' tn.^ 17th ceiitury this was the inherited pa.ttern of land-use in the manorial tovmships of I'iddleham. Both Bishop I/Iiddleha;n and Sedgefield s/io;; the coraponents listed above and it is else highly likely that Cornforth shoved the same divisions, only absar:ce of the enclosure award does not permit such an assesticn to be made vith certainty. It is evident, licwever, that by the time of enclosure, a new component had a-peared in the townships. These v/ere landis enclosed by inaividuals in the form of farms, lands in severaltp- and lammas closes. IT. Thorpe"^ in his st;;id7 of Green-villages suggests t, three-fold division of the land-use in such townships. First, there was the inner belt of pastire on the .'reen, secondly, the centrtl belt of small garths, yards, crofts, padv^a.oi:;., etc., and Ipstly, the great outer belt comprising the main arable land, pa,sture, meadow, stubble, fallow and waste. This would seem to be a pattern that transcended the oiiangoa that occurred as a result of the 17th century enclosures, for by I839 the greens were still in existence, the central belt of sm.all garths, P'pi'ds, crofts and oaadocks 'was in eviaence, while the ;i5reat outer belt still dj.splayed the division of use that he postulated, altliough it was based on the enclosed farm divided into small closes, ratlier than the township lands divided into lai'ge coamipxi fields and pasture worked in common. ,7hat this meant to the pattern of land-use in 1839 can be seen by reference to Fi/pax-eo 4'), 50 and 51 . Itoreas in 16OO, the to-i/nsSiip of Sedgofield showed a medieval pattern of large arable fields worked in co-.ppon, enclosed stinted pa sture and waste pasture, by 1339 the oattern of land-use had become as dispersed as the pattern of 109 farmsteads which is not. surprising since it was the deoisions of the farmers within their enclosed farms that established the land-use pattern at that date. But although the decisions of the individual I'armers wore lm'oorta,nt, the fect that there are large continuous -reas where the use of the Isnd is uniform, shovw- that there were factors influencing its use that were oj^erative on a rrouch larger scale than the farm. Hence, land that is low-lying and il'i irainod, such as that of the Garrs ana the land bordering them, seems to be given over to grass, as is the Irnd occupying the steeper slopes. Conversely, lend used for arable cultL- v;,;tion tends to be in the higher, flatter, well-drained parts. In this area of boulder clays, sandii and grrvels and limestones, local variations in soils aa'a also significant in -v-oducing a patGh,;ork pattern. For example, the incidence of extensive arable is noticeably higli in the northern part of Bishop Middlehara tov/nship, and the southern wart of Gornforth on the ^'a.gnesian Limestone soils of the dip-slope. Apart from these ohysioal factors, there were also economic factors at v;ork. It is ao parent -whan examining the lamd-use maps that a greater part of the land near the villages is given over to grass, rathei" triaa other uses. One of the purposes of grass w as to feed animails that orovided traction power, notably horses, so pasture near the villa.ge f or t hese animals is indice.ted. This, coupled witii the demands for grass froiu the dairy and meat producing animals, would certainly mean that Icurge areas would need to be rut dov;n to grass. Of further importance is the aresence of Iiardwick ilall within the tov/xiship lamds of Sedgefield. The park was given over to :ra,ss and monumental gardens which forms a considerable area of pasture in the west. 110 The following tables show the area and percentage of township lands given over to arable, grass, viood and other uses at the time of the Tithe Award. Land-Use in Middleham Manor in I839 Land-use Corn-forth Bishop Middleham Sedgefield Acres Acres Acres 0 Arable 755 43.5 1227 59.8 2632 50.9 Gras s 379 52.0 721 35.1 2200 42.5 TJood -- 21 1.0 1 84 3.6 ata. 75 4.5 83 4.1 155 3.0 Total 1639 1 00.0 2052 100.0 5171 100.0 In Bishop Midileham a grea^ter jrecentage of the land is given over toaraAle than is tlie ca.se in the other townshijjs, and is also much greater than that f^iven over to graiss. The fields occupying the former open fields were still predomin-ntly arable in I839, while most of the grass is to be found in the aasture lands that had already been enclosed by 1693. fhe park aaad the demiesne were still pasture and aa"able respectively, but some of the petrk had been converted to arable. It would seem that oh.asical factors were an important consider• ation for pa.sture land clearly follows the up )er Skerne and Stony Beck valleys, and ijorders the lovf-lying Garrs. The 1839 laaid-use oattern shows thait land that lay outside the three arable fields in 1693 still had a tendency to pasture raitVier than arable wiiich is largely due to ahyslcfil controls. The northern part of Fouma:,rds pasture had changed its use to arable, but the southern, wetter cart had i^emained as meadowland. Goi-nforth differs from the other vills in that more than half its lands were under grass in lSp9. The map (Fig. 51-) shows a mr^rked Ill division between lands predominantly arable and those predominantly grass. If a line is drawn from north to south past the east side of the village, it can be seen that the Irnd to the east is mainly under arable cultivation, while that to the west is largely under grass. With the exception oT the blocl: of arable land to the east of the village, the arable tends to be sited away from the village. As far as grass is concerned, this seems to be present in fields bordering the Coxhoe Beck, the steeper areas overlooking the Ferryhill Gap end the dissected scarp face. The higher, gently-sloping, well-drained lands to the east and south are those which are predominantly arable. The 50.9r' of Sedgefield lands under arable and 42.5f' under grass represents the svcirage percentage for the manor as a whole. In some ways this is a reflection of the physical landscape and its variations within the manor from north to south. The Sedgefield lands occppy an area of much less-pronounced relief, but the va.lleys of the small streams foimi poorly-drained areas of boulder clay where grass oredoraina.tes. This is particulEtrly so in the area to the east of the village in the former iiast I'loor, v/here the greater occurrence of pasture can be equated "with the b adly- draine d Re dear Carrs. Siinil;-,rly, grass to the west of the jark is associated v/ith the Carrs and the Upper Skerne. Over the gently undulating lands of this toimship the nature of glacial deposits has influenced local soil conditions and lias played an important paz-t in the use of the land with patches of relatively well-drained sands and gravels providing a better milieu for arable than the wetter boulder clays. Gonclusions The changes in the field patterns bet-ween 16OO and 185O represent the landscape evidence of agricultural reorganisation that could be termed revolutionary. Although there is much evidence of the process of enclosure evolving slowly throughout the medieval period with the leasing of the demesne land, severalties and Lamtrias closes, the Chancery Decree enclosures were an abrupt occu rence and created a territorial organisation based on individual ownership) rather than corporate effort. It was a system that allowed the individual owner or farmer to make decisions concerning his landholdlng without reference to other landholders. For example, it has been shown that variations in the field pattern of 1339 can be attributed to the decisions made within the allotment boundaries. There is little evidence, however, that this commitment to a reorganisation of the land .was linked to a revolutionary fervour for change in agricultaial "-aatises during the aeriod for, as has been shO'wn, changes in agricultural method.s proceeded very slowly with medi• eval rotations still being used as late as lie l9th century wdth only limited introduction af sucri things as convertible husbandry and new crops. In 1839, as in the 17th century, the use of the land -was largely determined by its phj^sioal characteristics with the wetter, steeper parts of the townships bein^j p;ivan over t^ lasture, and the cirier, better-drained lands given over to-rable. The demard for animal fodder is shov/n in the amount of land under grass as -well as the inclusion of oats in the arable rotation. Not only -was the fodder required for the dairy and meat animals, but also to feed the grovaing horse arid pony populations in the newly developing mining areas. I'he traction animals on the farms and in the vill;;.ges a.lso required sasture and fodder «hioh influenced the amount of grass present on farms and near the village. Although the landscape had undergone a revolutionary process in terms of the establishment of many enclosed farms within v/hich field 113 patterns developed, the abs snce of new crops find rotations indicate that the three-field system of rotation with permanent pasture and meadow, had been retflined, albeit on a smaller scale. It was not until the early years of the 19th century that the introaucticn of fallow crops into rotations was occuring more frequently. Uore detailed evidence of this will be seen v/hen some individual farms are examined in the next chaoter. 11 /+ Chapter 4 References 1. Tl. /. FJTLIN, 'Field Systems of Borthumberland and Durham', Stud.ies of Field Systems of the British Isles, A.R.TI. Baker end 11,^,. Butlin (S ds.), Garabri dge 1973 2. P. DEiiffi, w. A. COLE, British BoonoraiG jlrowtii 1638 - 1959, Gtmbi'idge, 1964 3. D. A. KI:®Y, 'Population Density and Land Vavues in County Durham daring the Pid 17th Century' I. B. G. Po. 57 Pov. 1972 4. R. I. POJGSOP, 'agricultural Improvement and Changing Regional Economics in the I8th Century' Man Pade the Land, R, P. Baker and J. B. Parley (Siis.), T'ewton Abbot 1973 5. P. KSRFilUGE, The A.:;rioultural Revolution, London 1967 6. P. G. E'riPf 'OP, ' Some Types of Common Field Parishes' Standing Conference of Local history, 1968 7. P. TIKjRPE, 'The Green Villages of Durham' Trans. Inst. Brit. Geographers, 15 (l949) p? 155-1 SO 8. Durham Pniversity, Department of Palaeography and Diplomatic, Palm.ote Court Records, II80, Parliam.entary Surveys of i;anors of County Durham, July l6p7. G H A P T S H F I V AN S X A M I N A T I 0 N OF THE T 0 w N S 11 I ? OF L A Y T 0 N AND S E L E C T B D F i. R M S IN THE MANOR 1 1 'l The Lay ton Esta'te In 1839 there were farms lying in the south east part of the Sedgefield townsliip occupying Ijaids v/hich have been previously referred to e.s Layton Lands (Fig. 33.) • The Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 editions indicate earth works at La.yton and designate these as the site of a Deserted Medieval Village which -./us the f orraer village belonging to the township of Layton. No mention of these lands is miade in the Sedgefield -i^nclosure Av/ard of 1636, since they were freehold lanis forming a small manor on the south eastern borders of the townsiiir> of Sodgefield. Surtees, in his History of Durham tells of the whole manor being invested in Guthbert Gonyers vfho died in I567. Mis elder s on Ralph, who v/:>3 involved in the 1 569 rebellion in the North, was attainted but forfeited only a life interest in the estate, and on his death it massed into the hands of his nephew Sir Ralph Gonyers. The estate was in the hands of the ^onyers family until John Conyers died without issue in VJl^lj, .Iian John I3':ker of Elemere and Thomas Maire of Lartington succeeded. In 1771 Maine sold his moiety of the estate to '' aorge Balcar and at a la ter date (unkncv.'n to Surtees) G-eorge Baker conveyed the whole estate to dilliam. Russell of Rrancepeth. P;poars belonging to the Baker family and known as 'ihe Backer Baker Paoers are deposit3d in the Department of Palaeography and Diplomatic at Durham University, and from these further information is available which enable a more detailed stu.3^- of this small manor adjacent to, but not part of, the Manor of Middleham. From the records it W'Ould appear that in 1527 the La^'ton Lands were Isased to Guthbert Gonyers of Butterby. This waas the whole manor, with the exception of a c ertain place pertaining to the heirs of Thomas Fishbourne of Sedgefield. This lease ;as for 21 years at £20 per annum. In 1529, the estate was leased for ever by Cuthbert 116 Richardjson to Cuthbert Gonyers and in 1530 it was sold to Guthbert Conyers of Layton for £130, to be paid in insta-lments by Ascension Day 1531 . This record is drawn from a volume of miscellaneous records among the Baker Baker Papers which also includes as an enclosure an estate map of Layton, 'The platt of the Lodship of Layton in the county of durham measured by instruments in the I4th days of apryll 16OB by Robert Farrow th'elder.' Two folios in the book also make reference to the plan. One, 12r, contains, 'An abstraot of all ye prrtikuler grounds in Layton with their severall contents measured by instruments by Robe^rt Farrow of Fishbourne th'elder in comitatu dunelmi gent, ye 14th of April 16O8.' The estate totalled 1,013 acres. The other folio, 11v, contains a 'short veu of all ye ssvarall closes as news o they be severed', along with the valuation of each close.'" The plan is reproduced in Figure 10, alongside the Layton Township fields in the 1839 Tithe Award. Comm.ent has already been made on the remarkable degree of agreement between the 16O8 and the 1839 township boundaries, and comparison bet?/een the f ield boundaries between th.jse dates will show that many of the 1608 boundaries were present at the later date, although by then subdivision of the larger closes had taken place. Alterations to t he road from Stockton to Durham as it passed through the township accord with impirovements made to this l8th century turnpike. Reference has already been made to the site of the village which seems to have lain on either side of the road 'where it widens for aerial photographs show earth A'orks in both places and those to the south west of the road are clearlj^ visible on the ground. From the air, ridge and furrow markings a re also clearly visible within the bounds of the 1608 closes, while the moors of 16O8 show signs of once having been under the plough. Beresford^ suggests that reference to 'severing' and 'severalty' mean that the closes in the plan may have been taken in comparatively recently \7ith some from common ground tnd some from open fields. The oresence of ,7est Corne Peyld(^ I.iiddle CorneFeylda and Easte Gome Peylde and their relation to the village suggests that these may have b eon the earlier open arable fields. Although -Farrosv raaies no direct reference to a manor house being present in I6O8, it is highly probable that there .as one at that time. The matter of the ma.nor liuuse and the dste of the village depopulation was discussed in Ghaoter 2, Vv'hen it vfas ,;tated that the abandonm.ent of the settlement probably took place in the earlier years of the l6th century. .Since the whole estate ap-.me under the owners hi:;) of the Conyers family in 1531, it may be reasonable to assume that the date of depopulation was leter than l.hat date and probably as & result of the event, '.ihat is seen on the I6O8 plstn is an early stage in the break-up of a landscape pattern that had emerged as a result of medieval farming practices. The village had been jibandoned .-.nd the owner of the estate (Cuthbert Gonyers of Layton) was established in the manor house. Indeed,, the Layton maiioi' house seems to h;.;ve been occupied by the Conyers family as late as the mid-18th century for no reference is made in the Baker Baker farm lerses to La.yton I'ouse being a fi^rmstall, although by 13>9 it was afarmstall on the iSfcst Layton Farm. There is no indiet.tion as to what happened to the dispossessea villager or as to where Gonyers obtained the labour for the working of ]iis estate, although v\i th oedgefield only two miles to the north west, this may have become a centre for the hiring of labour for two miles would not be too great a di.stanoe for him to tra.vel to his fiork. A period of 1/0 ye;^rs passes before the next detailed reference to the Layton Sstate occurs in the records, which is an advertisement for the sale of the Layton Estate datod 10th May, 1777. This f-ives particulars of the estate as follows: Present Rent Present Value A, d 1. Cowle^.r House Farm containing 352.3.0 A Creor^e ./ard is tenant 170 0 0 i8l 0 0 2. Layton .Vest Farm containing 262.3.35 A V/illiam Dewell is tenant 125 0 0 138 16 6 3 Fields being the t;vo Lee Fields and Pluggerston's Close are to be added to Lot 5 if sold in lots 4 Closes on the S.W. side of the turnriike in Lot 5 being G-arth Pastures ( 2 meado'.v, 1 pasture, 1 arable) to be put in Lot 2 if sold in lots. £ 3 d Value of 3 closes 33 1'5 6 Value of 4 closes 28 0 0 5186 132 18 0 3. Layton East Farm containing 210.3.1B A John Tones tenant 100 0 0 110 16 6 idd additional value 5186 116 15 0 4. Stobba^rts 7/est of Layton containing 178.2.11 A John Stobbart tenant 85 0 89 7 0 All tengoits have terras of three years next II iiy Day to come in their farms bysgreement in writing. •1 ^ o This esta,te not to be sold for less than £20,000. The purchase to be completed and ths money paid by next Lammas and £2,500 in port of the uurchase money to be paid on or before 5th March (Baker Baker MS 14/41) There are also present four plans of the farms of the Layton Estate (Pigs. 52, 53? 34 "nd 53-) '-'nd from, the names of the farmers entered on the plans would seera to post-date the advertisement for in two cases the t enants are different. The Cowley House Farm was tenanted at the time the plan was drawn by George Mann, and Gtobbart's Farm by John Ross. George Li'ann was .3 ranted the lease of Cowley House Farm on 2nd January, 1777* Gtobbart's Farm was leased to him for three years on 10th October, 17',''4., so it is assumed John Ross was g ranted & new lease some time in 1777« i'hei'e Is also a document, 14/I20a, which gives schemes of husbandry for the farms of Layton from 1771 - 1777 (Pig. 55»)« '-^he names of the :.brraers for 1777 these schemes aro the same as those in the adve-•tisement. Another schedule of husbandry for the four farms, 18/15a, begins in 1778 (Fig. 58.) with the names of the farmers on the plans. It would soem that the p^lans were drawn up circa 1777« Comparison between these plans and the former map of I6O8 (Fig. 10.) yrill show the changes that have taken place in the field boundaries during the intervening 170 years. The farm plans were drawn without instruments and allovvdng for inaccuracies that result from this, it can be seen that the 1608 boundaries are strongly in evidence in 1778. The greatest changes have occurred in the south east where the 16O8 close called the OUTiiLING has been di-vided. Further comparison with the field pattern of 1G39 shows again the persistence of these earlier boundaries for, as in the Bishop's townshj.ps, the pattern of small closes has evolved, witliin the boundaries of larger enclosures. 120 Comparison between these 1777 farms and those of 1839 can also be made by reference to Figure 36. By that time the La;^/'ton .Estate ivas in the hands of Villi am Russell end Williejn DeyielV s Farm had lost that part lying north of the turnpike end had gained the part of John Tones' Farm lying to the south of the turnpike in exchange. The schemes of husbandry for the four farmis occupying the La.yton Estate from 1771 ~ 177^, given in Figure ^6, should be examined along• side the maps of the farm.s c1777 (Figs. 52 - 55«) These schemes do not cover all the fields in the farms foi' in e.ach G;j,se thei'e is a footnote which states, 'All the other part of this farm to continue in the situation it is now in ' One case of a system of convertible husbandry appears with fields being laid down to grass for a number of years then having the grass burned ol'f and a three-course rotation of wheat, oats and fallow established. The dominant pattern is this three-course rotat.lon, whicti is also carried on in the schemes of 1778 - 1792 (Fig. 58.). In the latter case there is evidence in V/illiam Dewell's .Farm and G-eorge Hann's Farm of the wheat crop being followed by seeding for grass. In general, however, a large number of the fields were laid down to grass vvhich seams to have been permanent (see the Tones' and Fawell schemes). The constraints out on the farmers by the clause in their leases which committed them to an e xtra rent of .£5 per annum per acre for land chan/jod from pasture to tillage without consent, //ould lessen the incentive to p'ractisc convertible husbandry, and Ic.rid- under grass would more likel.v rem,ain as premanent pasture. In tlie earlier schemes there is not much reference to the use of fallow crops with clover only onco being sov.n in dewell's Parra in 1773* Peas were to be sown in one field on the same farm in 1772, while in 1771 they were also to be gro.:n on Ross's and Tones' Farms. In the later schemes, clover and turnips appear in the rotation, instead of the fallow in tv/o of the fields of Tones' scheme, .vhere barley is also substituted for wheat. In another field, peas are grown in 1779 instead of wiieat. The scheme of Anthony Fawell for the Cowley J'ouse Farm is ••;redominantly the wheat, oats, fallow rotation, although in one field for two years, clover is introduced (178? and 1788), while in two small fields a two course rotation of b;-rley and turnips is followed. The submission of such schemes of husbandry and the restrictions placed on conversion in the leases indicate that the farmers did not have a free hand, iiven the a/'w;)lication of manure .seem-s to have been the concern of the owner for t he schemes also indicate which fields were to recaive the mianure and Vv'hen it vras to b e c r^lied. It is of interest to note that the length of the period of the lease decreased on the La,-rton Farms during t.tie l8th century -while the rents increa,sed. In 1740, ^ohn Conyers leased Layton L'oor Mouse Farm (East Lap/ton) for the terra of twonty-one years at £15 per annum;,whereas in 1774 Judith Baker leased the same farms to John Tones for the t orm of three years at £100 per- annum plus £5 per annum per acre for every a-:re converted to tillage without consent.'' In the 1 /40s and 1750s, the terms of the leases had usually been six years. V.nen John Baker and Thomas liaire inherited the estate in 1748, the rents seem to have remained the same as under Gonyers until the renewal of the leases in 1754, -when ronts she-, an awpreciable increase. The John Tones Farm, for e x-Eraole, showed an incr'ease in rent from .£15 'per annum to £85 per annuip.^^ It is in some v/ay a mefvsure of the prosperity of the farmers that they v/ere able to pay these miUch higher rents. By 1812, the scheme of husbandry for the John Tones Farm (Fig. 59.) was shov.'ing a gre: ter use of fullow crops with a more frecsuent occurrence of clover, rape, bears and turnios, although fields are still allowed to lie fallow. So, although the farmers may have been relatively prosperous during the iBth century, it would seem to have been a prosperity that was based on a buoyant agricultural market rather than a revolutionised agricultural industry. On the Layton Farms, new crops and new rot.r.tions certainlp^ do not ao.iear to have been introduced on any scale before the leginning of the I5th century, Ferming practices could not be described es revolutionary according to the criteria laid down by Kerridge^" for by 1800 they were still follovjin;; a basic three- course rotation of wheat, oats and fallow which was medieval in concept. The 1608 plan of Layton showed no farmstells within the fields and closes, butby 1839, fis well as La.yton House on the site of the village, there were four of them present. Establishing the date of construction of these fe^rrahouses is e^s difficult as dating the deaopulation of the village. The earliest evidence for the existence of a farmstall is a lease from John Conyers to John Reacihead of a messuage, house or tenement called Layton I'loor house, on 20th February, 1740'"" which apperired to be East Layton in 1839 and the John Tones Farm in 1777• In 1754 Thomas Cowley had the lease of a farm which had taken the name of Cowley house by 1774 when it was in the hands of George 'fard. It •would seem that the f armstg-ll took the family name but the date of construction is still unclear for Thomas Co.-;ley is not necessarily the farmer after v Although evidence is slight it would seam that, apart from Far Layton, the farmhouses extant in 1839 dated from the early yea;.rs of the 18th century, '.tliether or not thoy replaced earlier structures is unknown. That there were Layton farmers before that time and, indeed, before 1608 is shown by the names of the closes on Farrov/'s plan (Fig. 10.) such as, ''Robert iVylkynsons Two Cloyses' , and ' Vvidow Chypchayse hyr grondes'. whether such enclosures took place at the same time as the depooulatlon of the village, or whether it was a pattern that had emerged by that time is not known, 'what is certain is that the Gonyers family would have needed- labour to vvork this estate during ths 17th century. By the l8th century, t.his took the form of tenant farmers working enclosed farms on leases. VMiether this practice went back to 1608 is not certain for there is no documentary evidence available in the Baker Baker Papers that will shed any further lif^ht on the practices of the 17th century. Conclus ions A study of this freehold Icn.'nship is of value on a number of grounds, the most important of which is the presence of the Farrow map of 16O8, surveyed by instrument and giving a picture of the landssape as seen by a contemporary rather than a reconstruction using 19th century sources. The Baker Baker collection also provides documentary sources and plans /Miich cdlow an examination of the ferms and fields in 1777 which is earlier than almiost all the olans of the ferm.s on the manorial Itjids. These, with the exception of the Farnless Farm, were drav.'n mainly in the second and third decad-os of the 19th century. Details of leases in the Baker Baker Pawers enable the presence of the 1777 farms to be established in 1740, although whether the boundaries were the same is not knovm. The Tithe /'ward Map and. sched'ule and the first editions of the Cv'dnance Survey Maps complete a sequence of useful map and documentary sources. Unfortunately, however, thei'e remains a gap of about one hundred and fifty years between 1008 and c1750 for which there is no ? established. The mis sin.,• one hundred end fifty years sew the processes that changed the pattern of 1608 to that of 1750. The £,vailablilty of documentary sources is not the only factor that roa,kes this examina.tion ivorthwhile. This was a freehold estate that had existed as a compact owne'/'ship unit from at least the early years of the l6th century v.hcn it came into the hands of the Conyers family. It contrasted with t he fdshop' r, vills in that the owner/tenant relationship was a two tier system rather than the three tier system of Bishop, owner and occupier that had developed there. The pattern of closes and fields on the l608 map is probably the result of a Tudor enclosure associated with the denooulation of the village. There is a suggestion on the Farrow map that the closes may ha.ve been allot• ments at enclosure for some cf them bear the names of tenaints. E. II. Leonard has stated that pisoomeal enclosure took place in the county during the 1bth century. Idince the 1597 Depopulation j ct applied to Durham it would bo reasonable to assume that depopulation had taken place earlier in the century. In the absence of firmer evidence, it is suggested that this township was enclossd and the village depowulated in the early part of the loth century. Vhat the system of tenure was before this event is not knovm but it is evident that the customary tenures did not persist on this freehold estate, as they did on the Bishop's lands for, as early as 1740, the township was in the hands of four tenant f-.rmers who held their leases for six years. This term had been reduced from a term thait ancears to have been twenty-one years. The field patterns in 1839 had developed in the same way as the patterns in the Bishop's townships. The 16OO boundaries have tended to Persist with smaller fields being laid out v/ithin them. By I6O8 the village had been aibandonod and there is no evidence at that daite of farmstails among the fields and closes. The evidence of the 125 historic maps discussed in Ghauter 2 confii-mis that the manor house remuined on the site and it was present on the 1777 maps, although it did not oerf orm t he role of a farmstall. .Mt that tim,e, the manor house and four farmstalls dispersed among thefields formed the settlement pattern. Although there hid been a change in the territorial organisation of Layton between 1608 and I839, there had not been a corresponding change in the crop and rotational practices of the farmers for by the first decade of the I9th century, only limited use was .einp; made of new crops and new rotations --dth •.he old three-course rotation of-wheat, oats and fallov: being dominrnt, and permanent pasture forming a considerahle oorticn of the farm Irnds. Some Farms in the Manor of Bishoo Middleham. The choice of fanns discussed in this section is largely determined by the availability of doc'^aentary and map sources. The earliest raao for a farm in the manor is that of Farnless Farm 0I788, and is re• produced in Figure 61 . This v. es a. leasehold farm and :;as part of the Bishop's Demesne. Maps of some other leasehold estates are to be fo-.'T.C in a volume of the ''"iscellaneoua Books of the Halmote Court which were d:;"awn in the second and third decades of the 1?if: century. These, however, are linked with verbal entries in Old Motitia Books'^ in the collection which -'ive, in some instancar,, descri 'tions of the estates at eai'lier times and lists of fines paid on admittance to leases. These can be for lives or y wrs and many go back as far as the 17th century ;vhich allows reference to be made to Bishop Cos in's Survey of I661 end the -'urliamentery Survey of ^6^.7^ Although it is not possible to say vrith certainty that the boundaries at cl820 are the sajne as they '.vere in I647, the inference is very strong when these documentary sources are taken into acccunt. Copyhold and freehold estates within the manor ai'o not so vvell documented. Island Pam is a copyhold estate in Bishop '"iddleham and the earliest map is dated cl840 or about the time of the Tithe Award, and is reproduced in Figure 60. The main sources of information for the copyhold estates ar-e the rental lists for the years G16I9 to I8OO and Call Books from c17l2 to 1809, and details here are sparse and sometimes ambiguous. The l647 Survey records the cooyholders but in the case of Bishop Ihiddleham this date is pre-enclosure and many of the farms are scattered among the comm.on fields. Sedgefield a.t that time was in the stage of immediate post-enclosure, and many of the copy- holdings are;fesoribed in the old terminology. Of necessity, then, the greater number of farms and estates 127 discussed in this section will be of leasehold tenure for it is here that the records are fuller. Since Island Farm has been used as an illustraition, and since it is the only coc.'hold farm, relatively well documented, this will be the first to be examined. Island Farm (Bishop iriddloham) Island Farm, situated in the township of Bishop iliddleham, (Pig. 38.) is probably so cfilled because it occupies a position on the higher land tc the south of the village and is bounded on all sides by low- lying draiinage channels. This site is one of the limestone knolls already referred to in an oarlier chapter. In 1839, the farm was held copyhold by the incumbents of the vicarage of '"ittinj^ton, and the perpetual curacies of Castle Eden and Hartlepool, each having a distinct area of the farm as part of his benefice. The map (Fig. 60.) is repro• duced fromi a "almote Court '.'[aap of unicnoivn daite, but is probably cl840. Comparison with the I839 field boundaries (Pig. 42.) will show close agreement. Cn this map the parts held by the individual clergy are marked. Map evidence earlier than 1839 is not available, but the existence of the farm, cam be tranced back throug;h the jhalmote Court Rentals. The rental for the farm was 143. Od, and by identifying this with the xnown holders in the eai'ly 19th century, this cran be traced back to 1752. By 1774, however, f.n entry for Island Farm 14s, Od. does not coincide with that which has been t.raced back. The confusion would seem to arise because the copyhold vicarial glebe also had a rental of 14s. Od. In 1758, Geo. Dixon paid the 14s. Od. rntal for 'Ye Parsons Land'. It would seem that the person who oeid the a'almote Court rental was not necessarily the landholder and the confusion that arose when there were two kinds of pa,r:.ons' land -.as rcbably understandable. The earliest reference to Island Farm in the rental lists is 1729 when it is held 128 by a Mr. Dunn, but it is an, additional entry in pencil, which is of a later date, that identifies it. The first original entry as Island Farm is 1 731 . Call Book ii of the JTj.lmote Court shoAS that in 177° the Rev. Mr. Bonj. Pye of Hartlepool, the Rev. Mr. John Todd of Castle Mden, and the Rev. Mr. James Deason of Pittington were holders. In Gall Book B, the farm is entered as Call }^ and reference is made to an entry in V., G. Peak Vol 1629-35 5*0 389-90 but this could not be traced. The Grll Book stated, however, that on pOth i-ovember, 1 Geo 2 (1727) Po 74, Island Farni was augmented with each benefice having a distinct pert as follows: Hartlepool 43-O* 3 Acres Castle 3den 64.3-15 Acres rittin-ton 44.G.2'h iicres I 1 an d F arm. 152.0. k A ores But Call Book VA Fo /I for 1722 shows the farm in the ormersnia of: Arthur Shipherd Vicar of Pittington (admitted) Richard herge Clerk, Curate of Hartlepool "alter Burn Curate of Castle dden The farm, then, can be tracedback to 1722, at which time distinct parts had not yet been allocctod to the clergy. According to Surtees in his history of the county, their ownersliip of the farm aid not predrte this by many years, for it vv cs bought for them with the aid of pueen Anne's Bounty. The 1647 Parliamentary Survey has an entry showing Nicholas Richardson as a cooybolder oaying an annual rent of 4s. Od. but' pro• ducing no fines or coppyes' for a holding diichras probably Island Farm. Another copyholding having the same rent was that of Thomas Kiddleton, a dispersed holding illustrated earlicr in this work. This probably represents the vicarial glebe which was consolidated on enclosure in 1695» hy the I8th century these two copyholdings would be the two lots of 'larson's land referred to in the rentals. Reference to Figure 32 will shop/ that m.ost of the land Ij^ing to t lie south of the villa.ge had b een glebe. As a, result of the Reformation, the Rectorial Glebe had been a-jpropriated in the l6th ca.ntury. In the a.bsence of /.'Ositive evidence, it m.ay be conjectured that Islamd Fai'm had orevi.ously formieii par'-',, of the Rectorial G-lebe .-.'hich Wo.s enclosed on a.ppropriation. The beginning of the iSth century sa'W its return to the church in the form of assistance to the poorer clergy. Th.ere is no mention of this farm in the enclosure award when it formed pe.rt of the land that ha.d been previously enclosed. In examining the pattern of the fields, three fields are .vorthy of note. They are the 'Cornfield de.^t of the Barn, Middle Island and Old Field 3ast of the Barn' . It is s'lggested that these fields show that they may have formed an eai'lier three field system; v;ith, perha.cs, the ' East side of Miadle Island' being formerly aart of Kiddle Island Field forming: a s ilit field. Each of these fields is held separately by the clergy irobably so they -.vould, each benefit fromi a sliare of the arable. In I839, both the 'Cornfield ./est of the Barn' and the 'Middle Island' v.ere arable while the ' Old Field East of the Barn' vwi.i largely under grass, a.lthough field boundaries here had changed. These fields vrere also nearer the village v/hich vould be an advantage when tFie lands •were worked from there. Apart from the arable lanP,, theae is .also a projection of the farm in a, south tvesterly direcLion, giving access to lower -.jetter tireas providing meadow pasture for early spring gra-E.ng. It would seem that 13( this faxm was organised, agricalturally, in a similar way to the much l-:rger to/mship lands .vith prevision made for a thjree-coui'se rotation of arable, gi'azing lands and v.'at pastuj-e. To the north there is a direct lane link from this farm to the village, diich suggests that at an earlier aato it was rorked ;'hom there. It is most likely, then, that Island Farm originated as a result of Tudor enclosure, follov/ing the appropriation of the Rectorial Glebe. V.'hen it again pressed into the hands of the Church at the beginning of the l8th century, it beofme institutionalised, a process viiich consoli• dated it as V. stable unit rhich 'persisted until ths mid-19th century and beyond. There is alighit eviurnce rhiich sugrosts that the farm r' 3 "vvorkec, in earlier times, using a threr field system with corres])onding meadow and pasture. The plot in the village shows that originally the farm was worked from there, but by 1c39 the site of the village homestall was occupied by a bi'ewery. The mid-19th century f arm.house 'A'ould seem to be a product of the l8th crntury. F:rnle3s Farm (Bishop Midcleham) The leasehold farm cf Parnless, also in the township of Bishop Middleham (Fig. p8.) --esenibles in r;ome v; ays Island Farm. This f::.rffi is recorded in the Old Motitiu Books'!' Cn 26th September, I765, t:. now lease .vas rrantea to iilizabeth rallhe'd (Spr.) 'Of a messuage or tenement Gslleci Farwl.;,; • •• r/^''-Mir; of, 3 Fields called Farnleys 2 Little Carrs at the bottom of the two Fr.rnleys Fields The Up'Tcr P;j.rt of the h'oui'teen Riggs The 9 Acre Garr Containing by estimation 78 .acres.' The map (Fig. 61.) shows this fa.r..: in 1788 a.nd is reprod.uced from a map of that date held in the :h'--lmo';a ''ourt Collection. This is the e a.rliest 131 map of the farm and it accords well with the verbal description given above. Reference to the maw of Farnless Farm in 1839 (Fig* -'f-l •) will show that although by that date it had been snla.rgcd, the 1788 Farm still formed a recognisable part. i. much earlier reference comes from the ^ok7 Parliamentary Survey when the estate is described as, 'One pasture close called '-igh Pnrnless with fourteen ridges contain i xa;;; by estimation 48 acres with two low m.eado-.-s containing 12 acres and one parcel of ground called the well Close now in the occupation of Christopher Selby as farmer fci- this present year at the rent of £32.5*0.' This is coupled witii, 'One fe..;ding pasture called Low Farnless cont. by estimation 36 acres and one pa,roel of meadow ground ca-lled 9 acres now in the possession of John I-Iutohinson as farmer for this aresent year at the rent of f,20.5.0.' Together they form 'The Bishop's Closes'. These were art of the Demesne Lands held by Nicholas Fraville in 1647. The Survey indicates that -bhese lauds were l:laom i^ueen Elizabeth by indenture, 15th October, I58O, and granted by Richard then Bishop cf Durham. They were as follows: The Bishop's Closes A: 8.00.00 The d'arke £ 3-06.00 The Demesne Lands £ 6.13,04 Deepewall Close (I acre) £ 0.01.00 £ 18.00.00 This lease was confirmed by the Dean a,na Chapter of .Durha,m under their seals of office bearing the date of the first day of December i\. D. 1585 (AO ;d3 E.R.) then in the hands of George Freville, Esq., 'without making accorapt or doing service or paying rant fo,r same to iiar majestja but paying the BishoT) and his successors am yearly I'ent in the said lease rese.rved being per an. d:i8.0.0'. 132 The 1788 plan oi' this farm shows that tlie IhXger pax^t of it ras divided into three major fiolds - North, Thiaiile and ,est Farnless. It is suggested, tir.t th-j field cn.llou 'Trie Garth' ,:oul,i originally have 'been oart of the Perth Fa..rnles::, Field a.nd it was so calleci because the la.rgo fijld had bean subdivl led rhen provision v.aa made for a homesta.ll. Since no mention of this fiaDri is mad.: in the Old Motia ^r.:!; rnu it is possible th.:...t its creation ;;,nd the ast^Ajlishraant of the farmsta.ll may post-date 1765 although this descri .)tion may hr.vs been long in a 38 in the He,lmote Gourt records r:.nd cantlnuafi to be s 0 after iie farmstall 'was 'built. The ss'erence of these three fields given over to : rable fi.,raing and the easterly rrojaction of ti:e f'.rra into the lovz-lying wet ca.rrs to gain a ccess to ineador, begs comparison v:ithtiie Island Fiirm. Reference to .he land-use mao of 1839 (Pig. 50.) t/ill show tha.t the three fiolcis were a.lsc -Ivm over to arable, ,vith the exception o" The Ga.rth which was grass. The Dainesne Arable and Park J[Bishop Middleham) In 1839, TPill Farm, lield uy wlizabeth ''allhaad and farmed by h-3orge Dale Trotter (see Farm Mo. 1 in Fig. 41.) consisted cf almost all of the ro-t of tlie Bishop's Dara.esne and h-'ark. The map. Figure 62, is taken from a volum.e of tlio hhiscellaneous Books in the Malraota Court Collection' and is probably dates. I823, since that is the dzj.te the estate was viewed. It is to be noted that a small part of the demesne ai'able hL..d been sep; rated as j..ndicated on the map. The lease for this war gra.ited on 26th Sewtember, 1765 to Robert Rawling, Clerk, a.nd consisted of, '2 cluaos called Rav;linr;3 Flatts, containing 12 acres oi- thereabouts part of the jomesnj Lands of Bishop Mid:Ileham...' ^'rt that same date the rest of the Demesne Land and. Park .vas leased to P'icholas Hallhead, Bsq., and. consisted of. 153 'The Park in i^ig-it ?; ro .v^i'Lt.lnin;- 82 norea •^all aarth 12 acr-.; Gwainston's Flatts in .5 olosos containing 35 '-•C-'-os De 0:1.7911 1 acre ..liioh said T'all Q-arths 'He are orrosl of the Demesne Lands there' . i.'uch aarlier roforonoe to these la.nds is made in U:..j 1647 Parliamentary Survey cs has already be^n indicated above. The jurors stated that, ' 'ie aresent tliat there t.re certain Demesne l^.nda bolon,^ing to the aforesai.d manor all inclosed the several names of every fie;ld, arable, Ksture or mer;doa ,vith the several acres of eash respectively are as followeth. Three several ilatts of arable land containinr by estim;j,tion 80 acres orth )er an. 4s. eaah acre. The tJinual rent 816.0.0 paid to the Bishor....' ',.e present thi,t there is one parke v/alled about cont. by estimation 70 acres worth per an. 7s. every acre. In toto £2if.10.0. ',',e find no deer eitjier reed or fallo oonyers or otlier game, the same being disp: rkeu m< np' p^e. rs since, is good for pasture Nicholss Freville is the tenant thereof. The tirabor standing end grov/itxg upon the premises being all iish(?) is worth to be sold£13.0.0. It doth arr)ear to us by ih'. ?revilles lease thst he is to hsve liberty to take in -..nd upon th^i ^remises sufficient 'hj seboote, liedgeboote, fj^reboote, slov/bocte, cartbcote and timber for the repair of the premises and houses there. .All the Demesne and aremises are wrth to be sold rbovs the rent C 8.15.0 per £ain.' In 1547 ^he hold-r v;:;s '8lctiol,;.s Freville ;":nd these lands vvere held in the same lease a s the Psrnless Parm It has been suggested else.vhere that the three closes forming the demesne arsble wei'e taken in az severalties from the three opau fields of the tornship. The bound;;ry betv/een the East and hiddle ?ield;i is the road f rom. the village to the north vvhila map examinsuion (Pig. 3"-) 1 34 vvill zho.i thebe^innings oi' ti th;.t originallj iivided the .eat Field from the Kiddle Field. -Examination in the f ielcl shous this to be a short sunken lane leading to the demesne orabls. The 1765 account of the farm is b little obscure when it describes Swainston's Flatts in three closes containing 55 acres. This could be 8 description of only the 'vest field of the demesne for t he total area of the former demesne in this farm Yvas some 77 acres in 1339 which would seem to agree v Tithe Av;e.rd ahioh rould have bjen helpful, it is assumed, therefore, that there is an error in this 17^5 entr;/. It should be noted, hj reference to the farm map of G1320 (Fig. 62.) and the land-use ma^ of 1B39 (Fig. 49.), that at those dates the demesne arable was still under arable crocaing and altiioug-h the jurors pointed out, in 1647, that the oo,rk was good for p:w3ture, by 1:^20 and 1839, much of it wasbeing used for arable. The 182O map also shows that by that date fallow crops, seas, ana. turnips, had been introduced. Sprucely Farm (Bishon ITidtlleham) A farm of long ::ta;Kliiig in Bishop Lliddlehain was 3")rucely and North Leeze (Pig. 41., farm 'To, 4-) Ij'ing to tho southeast of the village. In 1839 it was o.viied by ..illiam Russell and farmed by John Bewick with tdi area of some I4af '^cras. The earliest map available is a sketch map accompanying a rotation schedule dated 1s12 (Fig. 63.). This m;iy be compared vaU::i tliab re:;ro.:luaed from the IB39 Tithe i\ward ma[) in Figure 63. Documentary evidence for the existence of this farm certainly predates this. Notitia Books'" show that on the 26th Uovember, 1749, John Burdon was ler.sed, 'All the pasture grovind celled Sprucely and North Lceze divided into 13 closes'. The closes were as follows: £ 3 d 3 closes called Sprewseley cont 53 acres 3 I0d 2o 10 0 2 closes called North Leoze or Bush Leeze 14 acres -5 7 5 closes called North Leeze or Bush Leeze 30 acres I0d 15 0 0 2 closes called •'liddle Noors 33 acres 5'i 8 5 0 1 close called North Field 4 acres 3 12 0 134 acres 58 5 0 .;i;arlier mention is made in the 16.V7 aurvey as follows, 'Cl-eorge Freville, son of Nicholas Freville, Esq., Thomas Bell and John Hutchinscn by indenture dated 20th July 9 Csrole (1638) granted by Thomas late Bishop of -Durham., ''oldeth all that his pasture ground called Sprusley and Northleeze set lying an . being in the townfields fcud territories of Bishoe Kiddle ham with all pastures, feeding, coaimons commodities, profits, easements, wayes and arpurtenancas whatsoever for the natural lives of the sa.id G-eorge Friville, Thomas Bell (than aged 13 yef.rs) and John l-utchinson (then aged 14 years) paying ner annum gt the £]xchea. -Durham at Martinmas and Pentecost, The lease to be void for the non-ps-ymen,: of rent vd..thin 20 days, etc. ,52.3.9.' The acreage of the farm in I839 would seem to accord well with that in 1 7^K5 if errors due to mistakes in estimation a.re taken into account. It is not possible to e;]uate the close names in the 17^i-9 account with those on the 1839 Tithe Award so although it is possible to state that the farm has persisted since 1647, it is not Possible to argue the yjorsistenoe of the closes and the farm boundary itself. Viith neighbouring P arras also being owned by -.'illiam Russell, boundviy adjustments may have been made, xteference to the scheme of husbandry for this f:rra (Pig. 64-.) will show that in 1812, 1313 and 1314 the rotation was still a tlirae-course one of vaieat, os.ts and fallow with 136 only once the use of clove • and onao the inclusion of turnips. i.lthough by 1359 the frrmstall h; d long been established among the fields, this holding still hnd a p-lot in the village, iiince this farm ^.vas al'-eady enclosed in 1693 and since it was mentioned as a farm in the 1647 Survey, it is likely th;rt it is a ccmpact enclosed farm that was b eing worked from a home3tall in the village in the l6th century. Simonsides Farm ( Gornforth) The plan (Pig. 66.) of Simonsides Farm is an example of the many estates of the tovmship of Ga::'nforth that have alans and details in riotitia Book No. 12 of the Piscellaneous Books of the Ilalmote Court. This plan is described ss, 'Sketch and v; luation of an estate in the Township of dornforth, Parish of Bishop f'iddlche.m In the County of Durham. Lease frc;ni the Loru. Bishop of Durham to Mr. (roorge Ewbank for 3 Lives. The life dead is Thomas Ruins, The ne leese to be granted to Lancelot Lownes of Bishopton nr Stockton - the no a life Lancelot son of Thomas Scott of 'd. Haunt on in the North E'ding of th. -"ounty of 8''ork, farmer aged 8 years ....' The estate was vievfsd on the 13th -''cbruary 1817. ileferences to Notitia Books'' shoa that this estate can be traced back as early as 1630 when it w SLS in the hands of Pobert has .veil. The list of fines 3ignif;ving entry to die estate is as follov/s; I68O Robert "aswell 1727 Joan Nilner 1 728 1743 D-'« John Johnson 21 st October, 1763 Jane Bland and .Villiam Carter 1st Nay, 1777 fx. Ewbank 13th June, 1782 8. 3wbank 5th Aaril, 1817 Lancelot Lownes i j i 25th June, 1827 iaine Scott 11th April, 1831 .Anne Scott 23rd September, I84O ./-sine .Scott The nev/ lease described above, oan be seen to correspond with the dates of entry on the list. On the 23rd August, 1743, Dr. John Johnson took the lease of the estate vdion it was described as a. tenement containing t",70 land.s. The 1661 Cosin's Surve,y olaces it in the hands of .Villiam ColleAige and in l647 it .as oaried by Robert Haswell. Bp'' I839, the four closes and the villa;je holding aera in the hands of 'liles Brown and the la.rge compict fax-m (IO8.5 ••crcs) was owned by Anne Scott (pigs. 43, 44-.). Prom the field pattern a three field systeni is not so rerdily postulcted as is the case witli other examples given. The Tithe Award field names show a Middle .Pield tni a isouth Field vThich tef.ve been shovm on the ,)lan. Tliis may be relict verbal evidence of a former three field system on the farm, but it is extremely tenuous. Three fields in the north with the names of Rushy Carr, Pottery Field and Bottom border the Coxhoe Beck providing the v/et meadow found in the other f r^rras. As was the case with Island Farm and Sprucely there is a village holding included in this estate. Mention has already been made of these links v.-hich predate the establishment of a homo stall in the fields. As in the cases of the ot?ier farms discussed, there is only slight evidence of the introduction of ne,v crops even as late as I817. j?our fields still lay Pillow at that date and only one small close was being u s e d f o r t u r n i p s. Gonclusions Tividsnce from this group of farms shows thf;t in Niddleham Nanor the enclosed farm unit wa.s in existence at the beginning of the 17th A • O I a'-' century bef • re the great enclosure movemient of that century ;-ot under way, iill the Bishop Niddleham farais instanced were wresent in 1600 being the result of Tudor enclosure or even earlier, 'Nil Fsrm and Farnless were established b,;- Nie Bishop taking his demesne into severalty, his pasture closes from the waste p.'sture and converting the park to agricultural use. Sprucely Farm was probsbly est:-blished as the res^ilt of niecameal enclosure referred to by E. M. Leonard r.s a-wing t• Icon ilf ce in Durham on • considerable scale in the l6th contury. Island F: rmi moat likely formed parb of Rectoraal Nlebe a ppropriated in the l6th century. RePerance to Figure 38, however, vill show that these fa 'ms did not constitute ill the land of :;ishop Niddleham that had been taken out of common practice by 1693 • The freehold iast "ouso F;.rm, ls.nd referred to in 1693 'Nr. liradshaugh's L-ind' as well as unspecified closes, h; d also been hedger' by that time. Gome of these ftrms thi't were of early enclosure sliow signs of a field system based on tjiros large .rsble fields ahich were worked in rotation supalcmented b,," pasture and meadow, a pattern similar to that found in the tovmshlp lands, '•'•'here is also evidence of slots in the village being linked with those early enclosures and which initially held t h e h o ra e Si t a.l 1 s . Thaae farms, then, lllustrste that a break-up of the m.edieval pattern of common fields and sa.stures v/as already advanced in Bishop Middleham by the beginning of the 17th century. In Cornforth township, to the north, the greater number of the farms of which Simonsijes is but a representative sample, were the result of the enclosure in 1624. Ne'-e tliere is little evidence of the earlier patterns of farming practice that jv as displayed in some of the Bishop Middleham farms. The oattern of links between the farms and the plots 139 in the village, however, .vas much more in evidence in I839 (Pig. 31.) indicating a distribution of village holdings that predated the 1624 pattern of enclosure allotmajnts that i-roduced the 1839 f;;rms. Since much of the land in Sedgefield was coiyhold there is not the documentary evidence available allowing the identification of the farms at earlier da.tes. Lack of in:!'orraati\;n of freehold fa.rms is similarly restrictive. Of the leasehold farms, the pattern of development is similar to that of the f^rras in Cornforth, with refer• ences in Old Notitia Books, Bishop Cosin's Survey and the Parliamentary Survey of 1647* This takes the researcher back to a oost-enclosure situation. Post of the farms we^e the result of enclosure allotments a,nd this orocess has bean dealt with in Chs.ater 3. 140 Chapter 5 References 1 . ROBERT SNRTNE3, Nistory and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham. Volume 3> I823 2. University of Durham, Department of Palaeography and Dislomatic, Baker Baker NS 72/249 3. University of Durham, Department of Palaeography and Diplomatic, 5a Baker Baker PS 40/I8 3b Baker Baker !,iS 40/27 3c Baker Baker NS 4O/23 pd Baker Baker NS 40/24- 4. S. KERRIUN2, The Agricultural Revolution, London 19^7 5. S. :!. LEONARD, 'The Inolosore of Common Fields in the 17th Century* Transactions of the Royal Nistorioal Society, New Series, Vol. XIV 19 07 6. N. N. PiPNSSFORD, 'East Layton, Co. Durham, in 1508: another early cartographic reuresentatIon of a deserted miedieval village.'. Pod. Archaeol. XI 1967 7. University of Durham, Des^artraent of Palaeography and aiplomatic, Halmote Court .'iscellaneous Books, Notitia Book No. 12, Stockton .,'ard 8. University of Durham, Department of Palaeography and Diplomatic, Church Ccnmissioners' Notitia Books 54-001, 54016, 54017. C F' A T a R f; I X G 0 N G L n S I 0 N S 141 The historical geograoher has little difficulty in recogni.sing the high l^'iddle ..g-es as ;•• oeriod of agricultur/r 1 arosaer.ity in dngland. The 12th and 13th centuries sa,-; the building of siany of the historic chur;;}-ifc8, Cathedrals and castles thct survive in the villages and market towns that formed the dense network of nucleated settlement that existed in lowland Pnglana ft th;;t time. Research into field systems and settlement indicate that in the lowland area of North- Bast England this was •)robi bly the time when many of the planned settlements were la.id out, a reflection of the confidence placed in the a.-ri-i cultural sraotices b; sed on the sianorial system of regulated co-opei'ative farming. Such prosaerity represented a summit in agricultural achievement, for it was the result of a lengthy nroeess of devslorocnt b:ps;inning v.ith the Anglo-Saxon colonisstion. The out- strio Jin;; of food resources by poouletion increase caused the drastic decline in numbers in the mid-14th century, which was the cfitalyst which '-ut siie medieval system in decline from its peak in the High Middle A..ges. Ailthough there may be debate among economic historians as to the precise dating and nature of the Agricaltura.l Revolution, that it occurred is not in doubt. This formed 0 second peak of agricultural pros^jerity based on the capitalistic system of the entrepreneur s.nd a money return for investment and labour. TSetween the two it is possible to argue the presence of a trough. The period of 1600 to 1850 in South-hast Durham represents the climb from the trough u;;. to the ne.v peak and v/as a i)eriod v.hich sa-.r not only the introduction of new kinds of territorial organis't'on and Isrd-usa, but also the final decsy of the older systm!. Tills work hf s hv;-;n concerned wit>' changes in the organisf t Ion of the land as tiie result of the evolution of an agricultural econom.y 14-2 based on coraietition from one based on co-oaeration. This necessarily Involves a consideration of tlie swing from the conceots associated with shared, communal land to a system based on private estates. This summary of finain.ps will concern itself, fi.rst of all, with the nature of the inherited pattej'n of I6OG, and then those key changes which finally resulted in the landscp.pe of I65O. 1600___- The Inh_eri1'. e d Landscape The close-spfcced pattern of nucleated settlement in the area of Middleham Pan or is in evidence on the ecrly maps of the Polstinate and is a pattarn which owed ias origin to the medieval period. Research has shown, hov^ever, tkr-t not all settlement was nucleated in 160c. Evidence from Layton suggests that dejio lulat i. on of that village he& taken ?lace cerly In the l6th century, while archaeological evidence from the Thrislingtcn site has shewn similar post-mediev!..l dates cf abandonment. If theue ere acceated as tyaical then it might be reasonable to assume similar dates of desertion for t';e other abandoned settlements maooed in Figure 11. S. M. Leonard' has sugj-ested that much enclosure ^jo ok place in Durham, in the 16th century, a fact borne out by the a'ailic:tion of the 1597 Pet against enclosure and dopoimlation. By 1600 the tovmship lands of the deserted villages had succumbed to enclosure fiiid paPterns of closes similar to those seen on the Layton mao of 1608 (Fig. 10.) had been established. VNiether or not the land was given over to sheep, as the Tudor anti-enclosure literature suggests, is not known, nor is it known .fnere the men v.-ho worked the land, lived when tlwa villages w(,;ra depopulated. livldence from the early mass of the Palatinate su.^gests that some dwellings v/ere srusent cn td;a vi.lla'"e si.tes for they a -e locrtod aad. namea. Tt is ;;rcbable, therefore, that some fa.rmstalls or former manor houses remained on ca near idao 3.it'js. De ;)0sulat lt)n -'w.s -.aell under way before 143 1600 and the pjjttern of 3U";-vivi.nf- villages an.i deserted sites formed the bfiS.is of the p;;ttorn ti.rt ..as to arriorpe by 1 BpC. The mrnc-rial vil].aps.i ; nd. townships o" Gornfurth, Bishop iiiddloham and Sedgefisld survived to iN.spl'..' man\^ features of the in'w,••ited medieval sp'stera. The slot ;'Sttarn t!is villap;es probably o;-*iginoted in tiie '?th oentsiry ,w th "jossibls extension in the 15th century, and persist.id until 185O .•.:itl- cnlp- relatively minor changes. avidence from Coiiiforth and Bishop Niddleht.m 3;.p--rests that in 1 oOtJ the farmst;;ll occupied the village to.'.'t« Certainl;/, the iiis ;er;3ion of the f;;.rmstalls to tiie fields on a laage sc;,le, to form a dispersed scatter, post• dated enclos.ire. The villh.pe slot represented a private land holding in an inrierited system that -..ts preo.ominsntlp one of shared land. But by 1A(!G, alt;iou.'8i the !:arKu8w 1 Ifuias formi.:d a champion lanascase of Oj^en fields, oa.stures and meo.rp: . orked in co .men, thee were sP-ns that lanas ,;3re being .vit'whr;.,,.n frcif: t.:p s sh- 'ca use. In Bishop i''idd.leham tov/nshi;-i, land had been taken into severalty sndla.mmas closes, ncth from 'the opeii fielA..? ::na t].-' 00 ' oii pp':tura by ' time of tA'., G!Wi.riaery Decr^a, ..'vard in 1695, and mi..ny of these cpn be t:w. red back to the ea.rlier years of the c^^wtPd'y. Although the enclosui'e o.f neiphiouring township lands a.n;.L the associated depopult^tian of villages s'lcw d a dramatic socio-economic charge, progress had been slower in Aha manorial Isnd.,, 'put none-the-less sure. By 1600, then, some units in the oattOiH of nucleated sa'.tiemant had iiisa ^Peered frud ;;ciTie of the i..o^.•.nsllip land.s had. been enolosed. The manoripl settlements and lands sai'vived. If rgal,/ in their medieval form and •;rsetiae, but h.ere also snclosu-'e hf^N. maae incursions into the open fields, GO:rimon pasturep : rwi meadows. Prom 1600 ,J:£.,Ji350 Althougli enolosfirp; ha..' cccfirred bafoi-e I6OO, it was on a limited scale. The Chancery Decree jlwards of the 17th c aitury acre tlie events that caused a revolutionaia/ change in the organisation of the Bishoaric lands for they took ell the land out of shared occupation and put it under oriva.te ownership witl: clearly dema,rsated allotments. This chan-p) v-as ad its most dramatic in Sed.gaflsld \-aje -e anolosui'e took place in 1636 and whe-e it has been shown that large areas of common a;:a:Plo c.nu oasture aoc 'e arfaal.ad.. '^'"y l695j a gret^t wart of trio Bisho.) Nia.dlalaam lands had s^J^fferec aiec-wneal ont^losure and a,lthough three oaen aa-^d^la fields "="amained, N\eae wais little co^anon pastaro. There r/ere a numhss c" factors •csultin ' from enclosu 'e tha.t aff ectea territor-a 1 cw.-ganis at' on. The awarding of alj.otments meant that owners had land ;vith iPie ahysical attr'lbutes of* identifiable locaPion, consK^ct size and soil r;aality, coupled .vit'a tenurial identlaty, vihich .aas freed from all constraints of ooi-aunal agriculture. This v,as im-a.jsta.nt Cov th.- priW;aa:a •'f ei^giaw.;sing that »vas to occur f'or it made Icasd a mora readily salePiPa; cc "'aalty. Enclosuae allotments proved iandurlu;' as ali.uiai. le slocks in Lha I'-nd market •aaa eventually beca.me consolidated In tjiO estates the -oialrp-. .a-; faw as sm.adl fa.nmers were coia::o noa, scna.; ..a -e able to malntaiin thaii" addi.atmeriLs a.s i-a.vner-ac caa ilea's, :-o ma .;^ac Pbla la vii=;aosa of oaie or moi'e allotmants and laetain one, .rhile nth'...;a sola cut riomslatalp to largs land-owners, probabl a to becoms tenant farmers. Tiie allotmants, t]te"afore, had a, considerable effec; on the aattsrn of enclosed f arms that iiad emerged by IB50, for tra; comsaotness of the letter was usually a reflection of the original allotment boundary. The ;'e aa-e cases, hov?ever, where allotments have ooiiPinod to form large f-rras ana_ t]:e -e is also evidence of allotments being divid.ed. Enclosure was not only a means of socio-economic adjustment among laaid-owners and tenant farm.ers. The act of enclosing destroyed the 145 already-ailing field systeif cf a former co-operative met.wod of farming a.nd ir.ti'oduoed a system of boundaries within which individual deeds icais would b:; operative and whi.ch was to produce the pattern of fields seen on the mid-l9th century maps. It has been siiown that the satt-^^rn of fieliA.s in 185O was a composite development based on the allotment enclosui'es --ithin the oosmion fields n.nd pcartures, and tin: enclosures that .:ere alrO'. oy present a.t the time of the Ghanoery Decree ./\;aru. liovfever, it is impoi'taat to emphasise tfif^.t the creation of small liodged closes, although t.n overt sign of the change from shared to private occupf;-tion, did not; pses-fge revolutionary chfxiges in other' a.spscts of af;;ricultural development, .dviljnce !ias been given to show tVK..t the inti'odue tion of new crops and. rotations occurred at a relatively late date, vaith f. basic tiiree-cours e rotation of .pheat-oats-f allow being used well into the I9th century. The three tier system of Bishop- owner-oecfi pier aith austopiary cof)pdiold fin,.. Isaseiiold. tenures lersisted as late as 185O witii onlp fea owners ...aking advastaga z" the ciiPi"w;e to snffanchise in 18OO. ;...lthough the es.rly enclosure a'' the manarial Ifnds provided the race:--;; x'y infrastructure, the ling.n-ing medieval attitude to pgric .aLtPr> 1 ;frf^ctices allcea only o.f tiie 'no.,' ffrming' .ia the 1Atii century. By t,]i.:. 1;i;:;e the r^j.. ei'op; and .'otations we b .ai.ng usau more reg:.il!f sly, A:-;e agricalt....r;.l depress'.on of the Post-Na iolaonio .wr ^;eriod opaarrin,;,. The prestion of s no,, field syst-P'': ss.s n".pt Aha onl._/ oAa.a,p, in ph.e r:ian-land 'fela.t.LonshiP tha.t eiTslospire aroduce^i. .ne.raa.p in 1 f;Ou ta:. 'A'••"fst All had "•eLiii on Aha villape toft, by 1':pO Aha Aa,pappd.y lf.a were afPutea fviPii iica.ifis tp.l.:_s lAf.ft ocsupLfwl s"P.e'f fP s ... ^ jp.p.LLpajd fa.r' .ihen thi.s movement out tfuAs pla.s.; is not kxu)\:n, but evidence from layton safcgest? tA:.e ef.p"ly p-w't of tLiO pAoA. c-ntfrry. Tiiere is no ev' tiiat mo7fpn.e.aa .'.it to ths fi'.;lu.i •. d. A:lv fcllo.vad the hedrdnp- uf the Ia6 allotmants. In IhdO taaraj adwajs:'::L;u faa-a-P, PPa:, aaaj sometimes design/:tcd as 'halls' which Is aroia-bi,a an indica.tloa a;' the social as^jlratians of theffeirmar. T6;are we 'e, ho.vsvar, subst: aPial aaaisions tP: b has, a,speared as slwpilflcant .f'aaturas o^' the mid-l9t}:i aaatair'V' If-nriscaae, along wif". thePa grounds, ana .aw -o-e rightly called 'halls', Palnsforth -aw! Rardaica; bein,a; arominent exaa,P.e;;. Th^: nasleaai:ed settlements tiiat 'lad survived by 16ap 'o also present In 185O ana. these included the three Bishop's v:lllages. .i-S a result cf the aomestalls laPaig locwled In the fields, cntnges occaa'rad in tha use aa' the vlll:.-ge Lofts. There is avidsnaa in Bishop Piuoleham,, •:^or axaJirile, of subs, a ;aha:ol, ; Pra.ajry, as well as cottages and houses oscaa}vPna torts. Sedgjfi.^P-d., as "sail as dis;^l.:.yin:, samil, r ;!igns, Pad developed specialised functions of an embryonic na.ri'ket settlement with intensific; tlou cf bull.P..ng on the plots a^na colaniwtlon of th-,; /;rean. The slot aa.tterns (ji' all thre:. set i'.lemonts aas the same as Laaa in 166'), wit>i a.dPiiP.anal minor sua-Jd visions. In the otli }r nuclesded settlements, fa,rmstalls in 1350 a;ore arasent in greapier numiajrs tlian in ttis aianorial villages. Flahbarn and fdnrden, for extanle, shtavad inlua-ited '^lot aa.tterns thrt still aantcl.ned cotPage elements, bat vPaere othe:r toTts had. disaopesred to a.aca anoda te the iSt'i conLa.ry farmstalls. Cn tiie "aeserted sites, indd^v.ldual halls or .farmatalls sarvived, or in some cases tliesG we.ae clusters of two or mors farmstalls. These findings, taen, h.Cive :.rodaced a pattarn o:' develosment in Pidaleham l!anor between PidO and 185O vPiich might best be described ;3 one 01' t:aaa)tive change. Although it has been possible lo present a seaaaeatial ord.er in aii.ich changes in territorial organisation occurred, tlie establishment ol' a, areciae chronology lia.s not been achieved. This has la.r;^ela- bee.n due to the fr;.;,.-me)itor',' nature of docan.a.;ntarv a.nd 1 d-7 cfirtographic sources, i'oweve:.-, cert- i.a •••oblems, into p'ri h mart detailed researpii may be o.f value, have such tlie di3f)ars'on of fsrmstalls after enclosure, the changes in bsundori.es and the spatial o-r^'ganisation of Aha newly enclosed farms. The distinctive character of i-^dleliam "anor dsrivas ulti.mately from ownersh.ia by the Bisiiop.:; of Durham and manp- of Arrs localised and in;.--:;rnp.l contrfi.^ts in lpn.df;o;fae, farming and territorial arrargjemont stsm d.i..'cetl.p from the f af;t that ore gx'oup of settlements, the mf-.narial viliagas of PidiO-eham, were held 'in demesne' v:ith tenants answering direotly (until 1926) to the Pa.lii;ote Court, while tiie re:;iaini.ag set i.lwpients aero fill piassea. by the Bishop to secular hands from a relatively esrl;/ efta. La.n..i-owners'rip is too often a .forgotten dimensj.on ahen explaining local v.riations in settlement i.nd economy. Chapter 6 References . E. i:. LSlOiUED, 'The Inclosure of Common Ji'ielcis in the 17th Century' Ti'ansactions of the Roj-al ITistorical Society, ITe.v Series, Vol. ,iIV 1905.