Tweedmouth and Spittal Manor Court

Berwick Record Office holds a lot of manorial records which relate to manor courts in the surrounding area, but what are manorial records? And what can they tell us about life in the past?

The manorial system operated throughout England between the 12th and 20th Centuries and has left a wealth of documents such as court rolls, surveys and maps for us to study. The manor was an administrative unit in which a lord exercised jurisdiction over his tenants. A manor, while similar in some ways to an estate, shows its greatest difference in the use of manorial courts. Lords had the right to hold their own manorial courts, through which tenants were expected to abide by their customs. These customs ensured that tenants upheld the law, while also maintaining their lands and livestock correctly. Tenants paid rents to the lord of the manor, and if they were found to not be upholding the manorial customs, they could face a hefty fine at the manor court.

A local manor that Berwick Record Office holds documents for is that of Tweedmouth and Spittal. This Manor was purchased by the Corporation of Berwick in 1657 from the Earl of Suffolk for the sum of £570. Looking at the first surviving manor court book for Tweedmouth and Spittal during the late 1650s and 1660s we can see the types of offences that were discussed. Most cases concerned settling debts between individuals living within the manor and the maximum amount that could be claimed was 39s 11d (the equivalent to over £200 now). In October 1658 the Jury of the Manor Court ruled that Margery Cooke owed John Unthanke this amount plus the costs of the court. Most debt cases concerned smaller amounts of money as can be seen in the records from 16th October 1662 which detail debts such as Mungo Moody who owed John Hoggart 5s, James Richardson who owed Henry Morris 18s 6d. The same names tend to crop up again and again throughout this book and we can get a feel for the personalities in the area through their actions that brought them to the attention of the Manor court.

As well as debts it is possible to discern physical conflicts that happened in the community through these documents. On 8th May 1660 eight cases of blood and/or affray were recorded in the court, a majority of which concerned George Moore, William Shernside [Chirnside], William Dunken [Duncan], Isabell Dunken and Henry Morris and his wife. Most of these individuals were ordered to pay 1s 8d in compensation to those they were accused of attacking. This was the equivalent to £8.76 in today’s money but at the time that would have been a day’s wages for skilled labourer.

Although blood and affray is one of the more exciting aspects of manor court records the majority of cases discussed were of a more mundane nature. Concern over local infrastructure was regularly mentioned and people were encouraged to keep their drains in good working order or risk fines. In October 1658 Roger Allam, Isabel Gill and Edward Lambe were all warned about the state of their ditches and threatened with a fine of 10 shillings if the work was not completed by the following May. 10 shillings was the equivalent £50 now, and again this does not sound like a lot but it was the equivalent to 7 days labour for a skilled tradesman – can you imagine what it would be like to lose over a week’s pay?

As well as people, animals were also a potential nuisance to the community and their owners were often fined for abusing their right to use common land. In 1658 Bartholemew Potte was fined 1s for ‘for keeping Ducke wth doe abuse the water’ and Thomas Law of Spittal was also fined 1s 8d for the way he kept his ducks and geese.

Amongst these slightly repetitive claims the occasional unusual line crops up that amuses us researchers and makes trawling through these pages worthwhile. In this book I found two entries of particular interest. The first was recorded on 14th October 1658 read:

The Jury also present James Richard for resetting John young who is a p[er]son suspected for adultery ffer th[a]t he left his owne wife & went away with a whore.

This really piqued my interest and sparked a lot of questions. Are they punishing a man for assisting in another’s adultery? Is adultery not normally a matter for church courts as it falls under their theological/moral jurisdiction? Is male infidelity normally commented on or prosecuted? Or is this an unusual case of punishing someone for a practice that a blind eye was normally turned to?

The second intriguing entry comes from some years later on 14th May 1663 and is far more bizarre than the first.

Imp[rimis] William Roule for Entertaining a woman that came from Scotland and was delivered of a Child in his house, fined 13s 4d

It[em] Widow Crawforth for Intertaining a woman that came out of Scotland & was delivered of a Child in her house 13s 4d

Once again these fines are not extortionate, only costing £70 each in today’s money, but they were the equivalent of 9 day’s skilled labour at the time. But to me the money is secondary in this case, the really interesting feature is the woman and her child. Who was she? Why did she come to Berwick to deliver her child? Did she know William Roule and Widow Crowforth? Was her child illegitimate? Why were William Roule and Widow Crowforth living together? Why is the woman not being fined?

Manor courts have so much to reveal about life and society in the past. They ask so many questions and open so many doors into future research. These records for Spittal and Tweedmouth are particularly valuable as they pre-date the parish registers for this area and therefore are useful for family and local historians providing information about individuals and their activities. The insight these records give us into the everyday life of normal people is also invaluable because so many sources focus on social and political elites and so this alternate view allows for a more democratic reading of the past.