General

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.

One of the great things about visiting an archive is you never know just what will turn up. We have more than 6 linear miles of material here at Woodhorn and getting to know the collection is a lifetimes work, perhaps even two! 

One of the more interesting things I came across the other day was the Agreements and Accounts of Crew of Foreign-Going Ships 1863-1905.

The documents give details of ships registered locally and the crew aboard them, the documents themselves are often ornately stamped and sealed with the details of the ports they called at. The first one I saw detailed the travels of a Barque ship registered at Blyth in 1874 called the “Lucy” owned by Robert Gray and captained by Carnaby Gray it was sailing from Ipswich in Suffolk to Riga, then part of the Russian Empire, now the capital of The Republic of Latvia. 

It goes on to say that “thence to any port or ports in the Baltic, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal or the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Sea of Azof [Azov] or continent of Europe and back to a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom. Probable length of voyage about twelve months. Ship fully manned with eight hands all told.” 

They set sail on the 31^st of July 1874 and reached Riga, which, in fact, was their only port of call, on the 22^nd of August 1874. On board with the captain were actually nine crew, rather than the “eight hands all told” as previously stated. The nine consisted of the captain, a ship’s mate, cook and steward, four able bodied seamen and two ordinary seamen. There is also someone with their job recorded as “BS” so this might have been boatswain, i.e., second mate. 

We also get to find out a little of what their life on board was like because listed upon the crew list is their rations for the week, which were:

	Bread lb	Beef lb	Pork lb	Flour lb	Peas Pint	Rice lb	Tea oz	Coffee oz	Sugar oz	Water qts
Sunday	1	1 ½	–	½	–	–	½	½	2	3
Monday	1	–	1 ¼	–	⅓	–	½	½	2	3
Tuesday	1	1 ½	–	½	–	–	½	½	2	3
Wednesday	1	–	1 ¼	–	⅓	–	½	½	2	3
Thursday	1	1 ½	–	½	–	–	½	½	2	3
Friday	1	–	1 ¼	–	⅓	–	½	½	2	3
Saturday	1	1 ½	–	–	–	½	½	½	2	3

Also written alongside was “No spirits allowed, when 2 oz of butter is issued daily per man ½ lb of meat less per man per day”, so this begs the question would you accept these terms and conditions? 

Ahh what of pay I hear you cry… well that depended upon your role on board. The captains pay is not stated. The mate was to receive £5 10s. The cook and steward £5, the second mate £4, the able seamen £3 10s. First ordinary seaman £1 and the second ordinary seaman £1 7s. 6d. 

Sound like a good deal? Well all contracts have two sides to them and the last page of the agreement lists offences and punishments, as sanctioned by the “Board of Trade in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Act s. 149.” 

So, if you were caught swearing or using improper language you could be docked a day’s pay, sleeping or gross negligence while on the look-out would cost you two days’ pay and secreting contraband goods on board with intent to smuggle, well that could cost you a month’s pay. 

The thing I found most interesting though was the record for the cook/steward, who is recorded as being, a James Black of Jamaica aged 32, now whilst we cannot assume that James was a person of colour, people who had either been enslaved themselves, or were descendants of enslaved people were often given ‘English’ names and often the colour of their skin became their surname. Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1833 but continued in the U.S until 1865 James would have been born in 1842 and Jamaica at that time was a British Colony and had shipped thousands of enslaved African people to work on the sugar plantations. A James Black also appears on the ancestry website on a crew list for a vessel named the “Semantha” 

It may well be the same person as the Semantha was also a Barque, the ship sailed three years after the “Lucy” and James Black is the cook/steward, born in Jamaica and was able to sign his name, just as he did on the crew list of the “Lucy”. Unfortunately, as ancestry only have a transcription of the record, we are unable to compare the signature. If it is the same person, then happily his wage has increased to £6 10s and this time he got a cash advance of £3 0s. 5d. 

As for the “Lucy” she returned to Dover on the 21^st Oct 1874, with all men discharged the following day. So now you know that the Ship returned three months after leaving with all hands on board safe perhaps the Ts and Cs listed above sound quite good? 

Happy searching, or should that be sailing!? 

N.B. The crew list documents have not been item listed so are not yet available to the public in the study centre, but we are able to carry out postal research using the records, should you be looking for a relative for example. 

N.B. More information about crew lists can be found on the excellent crew list website https://www.crewlist.org.uk/ where you can search for ships or crew, they cover the period 1863 to 1913. The National Maritime Museum also have a searchable database on their website if you are looking for later ships or crew https://1915crewlists.rmg.co.uk/#home they cover the period from 1915 onwards. 

One of the most varied and interesting roles that Northumberland Archives staff fulfil is that of visiting sites to view material that the archive would potentially like to take into its care. Historically significant documents can find their way to the archive from many different sources; from an interesting scrap of paper being found in the back of a cupboard, to the closure of a business resulting in the wholescale clearance of the organisation’s offices. Having the opportunity to visit places and view archives in situ can be incredibly useful for archivists, whose role also includes making sense of the material so that it can be accurately catalogued and made available to researchers in as obvious and logical order as possible. This process can also vary in difficulty; for every site that contains well-organised, clearly labelled, and boxed collections of records, there is the prospect of piles of unsorted papers dumped on desks or the floor. Happily, on a recent visit to view material from Hexham Racecourse, the former was very much the case.

Earlier this year, Northumberland Archives were contacted by Major Charles Enderby, the previous owner of Hexham Racecourse, to ask whether we would be interested in the course’s archive. Hexham Racecourse was established by Major Enderby’s great grandfather, Charles William Chipchase Henderson in 1890, and the majority shareholding remained in the family until it was sold to its current owner in 2015. The racecourse is known as one of Britain’s most scenic and is positioned amongst stunning Northumbrian countryside, two miles outside of Hexham. 

The racecourse archive contains swathes of interesting material that show the development of the site and the business from the early twentieth century up to the 2010s. Accounts, plans, minute books and correspondence all feature, which give an intriguing picture of the development of an important local sporting institution over the century. The archive also includes a comprehensive collection of race cards from the 1980s onwards and several photograph collections, providing an excellent resource for both local and sporting historians.  

The process of selecting material for transfer to the archive is an important and not always straightforward one. Archivists must often make informed decisions on what material should be permanently preserved and what can be housed elsewhere or discarded. In most cases we look for unique material of historical significance that shows how a business, individual or organisation functioned and operated. Luckily in the case of Hexham Racecourse’s records, it was straightforward to make these decisions and we were able to ensure that all the appropriate material could be taken to form the racecourse archive. By the end of our visit, roughly 32 boxes were ready to be transported back to Woodhorn. Once this material has been processed and catalogued by archives staff, it will be made available for consultation in our Searchroom. We look forward to sharing interesting stories from within this collection as they are uncovered during cataloguing.