🎄Christmas Opening Hours for 2024🎄
CLOSED between 4pm Friday 20th December 2024 and 10am Thusday January 2nd 2025
Ordinary opening hours apply before and after this period.

Leaving your mark – strange signatures in the court documents

In the course of looking through some of the manorial sources we are using on the project we see a lot of different types of handwriting. Some are beautifully practiced and elegant, others scribbled and hard to decipher. Examples like the one below from Morpeth in 1659 show how different letters can look to modern eyes, but with time and patience they can be worked out.

Sant/BEQ/28/1/1 cropped image.

This however is the handwriting of educated clerks and court officials. Most of the rest of the population would have been illiterate, so it would be required for them to give a ‘mark’ of some description. For more affluent classes this may be shown by a seal, but in most cases a simple ‘X’ would show they had been present and gave their agreement to the document being signed. However more complicated marks could be devised by an individual to identify themselves. Such identifiers are found in other areas of medieval and post-medieval life. Masons’ marks on stone would identify who had prepared each block, and would often be passed down families, with additions by each generation. Likewise potters would mark the underside of their work to show its provenance in their workshop. Though we have featured the document below previously, this is a good example of a document signed by numerous people with their own marks.

ZBL 2/13/21 p.2 cropped image of a presentment.

There are several ways these men have chosen their mark. John Roddam (1st line) has taken the ‘R’ from his surname. Conversely Ridley Havelock (4th line) has used the initial ‘R’ from his first name, and the same can be found with ‘T’ for William Taylor (6th line) and Thomas Pattason (8th line). William Ransom (last line) uses a bold ‘W’ of two crossed V’s like witches’ marks, and perhaps Thomas Smith’s (10th line) began as a ‘T’, but was added to. The ‘N’ of Nicholas Ridley (2nd line) is reversed, and William Coulson (12th line) could be an inverted ‘C’, or reflect a horseshoe or other device. The others seem to be choosing marks unrelated to their name, similar to simple marks like the masons’ marks.

We are keeping our eyes peeled for interesting examples like these as we look through the manorial documents we hold, and were excited to share a recent discovery that has given us much discussion and food for thought. In the image below we see a ‘H’ used by Humphrey Heatherington like the previous examples, and John Heatherington’s half-cross is much like that used by John Reay (11th line). A squiggle also represents a mark or signature used by William Marshall. However our favourite is that used by John Riches, a doodle perhaps symbolising a hook, or even a bird.

NRO 324

We would love to be able to work out what it means, if anyone has any suggestions please let us know! In the meantime we will keep looking for other interesting examples.

NRO 324 cropped image.

 

Domestic pigs and dusty feet: the smaller courts of Pannage, Woodmote and Piepowder.

The Manorial Documents Register (MDR) records documents produced in the honour courts. An honour is an administrative unit based on a number of manors, the tenants of which owed suit to an honour court in addition to, or in place of, the normal manor court. As explained in one of our earlier blogs the two main types of manor court are the Court Baron and the Court Leet. However there were other smaller courts dealing with specific types of business, these are not recorded on the MDR but it is useful to be aware of their function.

Pigs in woodland
Pigs in woodland

The Forest Court had jurisdiction over woodland and was sometimes called the Woodmote or Swainmote Court. The Court of Pannage dealt with the business of releasing domestic pigs into the forests to feed on acorns, beech mast and chestnuts. This was often a right or privilege given to local people or in some places pigs were customarily presented to the lord of the manor. In some areas of the country a unit of administration existed between the shire and parish, this was called a Hundred and had its own court. In Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire the Hundred Court was referred to as the Wapentake Court.

ZHE 2/2, reference to the Piepowder court highlighted.
ZHE 2/2, reference to the Piepowder court highlighted.

The Court of Piepowders was held in a borough on the occasion of a fair or market.

This document from the Allendale papers mentions a Court of Piepowder in 1685. The court had unlimited jurisdiction over events taking place in the market and tended to deal with disputes between merchants, theft, and acts of violence. The court was held in front of the mayor and bailiffs of the borough or the steward, if the market or fair was held by a lord. The jury comprised of three or four men and punishment ranged from a fine to the pillory. Trials were short and informal. If the court ruled against the defendant and the defendant could not pay his property could be seized and sold to cover the costs.

These courts existed to administer speedy justice over people who were not permanent residents of the place where the market was held. The name referred to the dusty feet (in French, pieds poudrés) of travelers and vagabonds, and was only later applied to the courts which dealt with such people. Court members themselves also wandered around the fair rather than sitting on a bench often getting their feet dusty in the process. In modern French, the word pied-poudreux is still occasionally used for travelling beggars.

Murder, marriages and manors: researching ownership for the Manor Authority files

In order to determine which places in Northumberland are actually manors and which aren’t we gather supporting historical evidence, and we write this up into a Manor Authority file. Every potential candidate will have one of these by the end of the project, even if it only contains a short sentence to confirm that it isn’t a manor. We use the documents discussed in previous posts and local history sources approved by The National Archives, such as the Northumberland County Histories, Hodgson’s Northumberland, Raine’s North Durham (which covers Bedlingtonshire, Norhamshire and Islandshire), and trade directories. We scour the histories for references to the manor, its description, owners and how it was passed through different hands and families. Our aim is to provide a complete account of the manor, with no gaps in ownership. However as being lord of the manor brought an income and social position these can also be fascinating stories of murder, abduction, forced marriage, theft of property and estates being squandered by profligate heirs. It isn’t always a simple case of an owner being ‘to the manor born’, you could become lord of the manor through marriage, purchase, or be rewarded with one for service to the monarch. We hope to relate some of the tales we have uncovered in future blog posts. Below we have given the example of the Manor Authority file we compiled for Ford.

FORD

Ford Parish

Alias: Foord

Geographical extent: Includes the townships of Ford, Kimmerston; Catfordlaw; Broomrigg; Flodden; Crookham; Ford; Ford Westfield ; Gatherick

Honour/Lordship details: Barony of Muschamp

Ownership:                                                                                                                            The manor of Ford was originally part of the Barony of Muschamp. By the late 13th century it was owned by the Heron family and remained in their possession until the mid-16th century. During this time it was passed mainly from father to son, with William Heron owning it by 1520. By 1557, the ownership of the manor was disputed between the Heron and Carr families because of the marriage of Thomas Carr to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Heron. The disagreement was brought to a head in 1558 with the murder of Thomas Carr. The manor then passed to the Carr family and remained with them until the early 18th century. In the 1660s, the manor was in the possession of three sisters of Thomas Carr – Margaret, married to Arthur Babington; Elizabeth, married to Francis Blake; and Susan, married to Thomas Winkles. By the early 1700s, Francis Blake had bought out the other sisters to become sole owner of the manor. He died in 1717 and the manor then passed to his grandson Francis Delaval, the child of Mary Blake and Edward Delaval, on the understanding that he assumed the surname Blake – becoming Francis Blake Delaval. The manor remained with the Delaval family until 1822 when it passed on the death of Susan Delaval to her granddaughter, Susan, Marchioness of Waterford. It remained with the Waterford family during the remainder of the 19th century. In 1907 the Ford Estate and manor were sold to Lord Joicey and have remained with Joicey family since this date.

Courts:                                                                                                                                                                

View of Frankpledge with Court Baron – referred to in the first extant court roll – 1658

Sources:                                                                                                                                                              

NRO 1216/A7/8 – Ford Manor Court Rolls

Northumberland County History, Vol. XI, pp.341-410

Kelly, E.R, (1914), Kelly’s Directory of Northumberland

Ford Village
BRO 0426/1037 – Ford Village around 1929

 

Anyone can request to see original documents like the manor court rolls in the Northumberland Archives searchroom, see our website below for how to visit.

http://www.experiencewoodhorn.com/collections/

You can also find many of the history books and directories we use online, using the following links.

Hodgson, Mackenzie and the County Histories can be found at:

www.books.google.co.uk

www.archive.org

Scott’s History of Berwick can be accessed using:

http://www.electricscotland.com/

Trade directories are available through the University of Leicester’s special collections:

http://leicester.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p16445coll4/hd/

For pictures, maps and other digitised images for Ford, many of which come from our archives, try Northumberland Communities:  http://communities.northumberland.gov.uk/Ford.htm