Manorial Documents Register Project

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

by

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

 

Beyond the court rolls – other manorial documents

by

In our first post we looked at some of the court rolls, and in the second how the courts worked. We will now explore some of the other documents that we commonly use to determine whether a place is a manor, and what else we can find out from them. From the documents we can learn more about agriculture and diet of the period, crime and the way criminals were treated, urban growth and industrial development, and land, house or property ownership. There is excellent scope for local history studies from these documents and the detail they give of land boundaries and the individuals who held them. There is also huge potential for genealogists – though you may think they would only provide information about the landed classes, some court rolls and other documents list the names of those renting or holding land by service. Here we have divided up the documents we use thematically.

Geographical documents

ZCR M-02 (AWARD) Survey of CrasterSurveys – as you would expect, these are descriptions of the manor and its boundaries. This can be very useful when trying to identify what land was owned by whom. They often also detail the customs of the manor, which often differed from place to place.

ZCR/M/2: Survey of demesne of Manor of Craster, Northumberland

 

Terriers – a survey arranged topographically, showing you the manor field by field or where open fields existed, strip by strip.

Maps – from the sixteenth century this survey information is commonly laid out in the form of maps. These marked out the boundaries, adjoining manors or parishes, and topographical features. Unlike the terriers these would be done to scale, and became increasingly accurate as time went on. 

NRO 452-E-3-3-1-2 Blanchland boundary rollBoundary roll – Description of the manorial boundary, though not a full perambulation.

NRO 00452/E/3/3/1/2: Blanchland Bounder Roll, Northumberland.

Perambulation – A long description of walk around the boundary, detailing local landmarks.

Land holding and ownership

Rentals – the names of all the tenants of the manor, however they held it, with a description of what they held and how much they paid, and what form their payment took. Payments could be in the form of money or produce. If they were expected to provide services it would say what these were. These weren’t as frequent as accounts or court rolls and sadly don’t always survive.

Custumals – The survey of rents, services owed by the tenants to the lord of the manor, the rights of the lord, the obligations he owed, and the customs of the manor. These would need to be examined occasionally, and everyone reminded of what these were to avoid confusion. Often the customs or rents changed, for example if services or produce were exchanged for payments of money.

 

Extents – An often earlier form of rental, a valuation and description of everything on the manor, such as the manor house, mills, demesne land (much like a ‘home farm’, the land near the manor house farmed for the lord), tenant’s rents and services.

 

ZCO IX-5 1 cropped imageSurrenders and admissions – The transferral of copyhold land from one owner to the next was done by one owner ‘surrendering’ his or her claim to the lord, who then ‘admitted’ the next tenant. This would be written down in the court roll, and the new tenant would be given a copy of what was written, hence this being called ‘copyhold’.

ZCO IX/5/1: Enclosure Act for Ovingham, Bywell St Peter and Bywell St Andrew.

Enclosure Awards – Enclosure was the practice of taking areas of unused land, strip fields or common and dividing them into privately owned fields. This would be done through private act of parliament up until about 1800, after which public acts were made possible, and from 1845 Commissioners were appointed to oversee the process of enclosure and issue enclosure awards. The awards detail how the land was divided and who the owners were.

 

Court papers

Presentment ZBL 2-13-21Presentments – lists of the matters to be dealt with by the court, such as disagreements between tenants or disobeying the manor customs, often drawn up beforehand by the jury. They might often be included in the court roll. ZBL 2/13/21 has some interesting examples including those brought before the court for offences such as ‘speaking scandalous words’ of someone or ‘wrongful mowing’ of someone else’s meadow.

ZBL 2/13/21: Presentments at Melkridge

Suit rolls or Call books – like an attendance register of everyone who owed suit to the court or attended the court. In some places these could be resident books, not only of the tenants but of everyone who lived in the manor. They might be kept within the court books.

Customs of the manor – a list of the individual customs of the manor, such as how many animals an individual could feed on the common

Stewards’ papers

 Accounts – These would be kept by the steward or bailiff of the manor, usually annually at Michaelmas (the 29th September), and marked the income and outgoings of the manor. For example ‘charges’ or income from the rents, money from sale of produce or fines; and ‘discharges’ or expenditure from purchasing livestock, repairs or labour.

Appointment of bailiff – a bailiff was a manager for the day-to-day running of the manor appointed by the lord. In some cases the role would be unpaid, with one of the tenants being elected annually to serve as ‘Reeve’ or ‘Greave’. This document would detail the bailiff’s appointment in the role.

Notice of court – letter to the lord notifying him of holding the court, or a notice often posted on the church door, giving the date, time and location of the court.

Correspondence – between the lord and the steward over various court matters.

 

 

Manor Courts

by

The lord of the manor had the right to hold a court for his local tenants to facilitate management of the manor as a social and economic unit. From the beginning of the manorial system in the 11th century the manor courts conducted a variety of business. This was recorded on the court roll and by the 13th century it is evident that two main types of court are being recorded. The court baron, or ‘curia baronis’, was held every three weeks and handled the general business of the manor. This would involve issues relating to land tenure and use and enforce the payment of all dues and performance of services owed by the tenants to the lord. It also had other powers giving it jurisdiction over disputes between individuals and over personal actions by tenants, such as the recovery of small debts and complaints of trespass.

The court leet, or ‘curia leta’, was held every six months and inspected the working of the frankpledge, a system of mutual responsibility within a group of about ten households for the maintenance of law and order. This was often called the ‘view of frankpledge’. It also had powers to deal with offences such as common nuisances, affrays and the breaking of assize of bread and ale, (this regulated the price, weight and quantity of bread and beer sold). This court could fine and imprison offenders, in many manors in Northumberland the right went beyond imprisonment. The Barony of Langley was one of the lesser Baronies of Northumberland in which the Tindale family were enfeoffed, required to pledge service in exchange for land, by Henry I. They enjoyed an ancient liberty where they were able to try thieves in the Leet Court and then hang them on their own gallows.

The Barony of Embleton, via a succession of powerful Lords, had very extensive privileges. The incumbent Edmund Earl of Lancaster claimed, in 1292, the right to decide in his court pleas similar to those tried before the sheriff. He had a prison at Embleton and gallows at Newton, Embleton, Dunstan and Craster.

Woodhorn also seems to have had a licence for gallows in 1294, as well as Ovingham where in 1294 the Umfraville lordship claimed the right to pit and gallows, tumbrel, pillory and toll. Tynemouth also had the right to prison, gallows, tumbrel, and pillory and Bewick near Tynemouth a tumbrel and gallows.

Other types of court, which were held less frequently within the manor, included the court of survey and recognition, the court of pannage, the court of pie powder and the woodmote or forest court.

The business of the court was submitted via the presentments; this was done by the jury who were required to state or present the various matters which were dealt with by the court. The actual procedure for making presentments is not entirely clear and it is possible they were prepared several days in advance of the court session. The enclosed image is a presentment from the manor of Melkridge in Northumberland, dating from 1700, it gives a flavour of the type of court business being dealt with by the court baron.

ZBL 2/13/21
ZBL 2/13/21

[click to enlarge]

The jury are to enquire for and on behalf of the lord of the manor whether:

  • Elizabeth Robson wife of Thomas Robson died forfeit of and in a tenement called Lowhouse and to establish who and how old the heir is.
  • we present William Kettlewell for speaking scandalous words to Anne Ridley. vi d
  • we present Robert Garlick for tethering his horse in William Greens meadow. vi d
  • we present John Smith of Whitchester for steeling [?] the wood of his customary tenants in Whitchester and is therefore amerced (fined) vi d
  • we present Ridley Haverlock and John Smith for suffering the hedges of their ground to lie down whereby the cattle can damage other men’s grounds. iii s  iiii d

 

 

ZBL 2/13/21
ZBL 2/13/21

[click to enlarge]

  • we present John Rea for not repairing a gate towards the high shoot and is therefore amerced. iiis iiiid
  • we present Thomas Smith for taking away hay. vi d
  • we present Richard Thompson for entertaining a thief in his house and knowing him to be so. iiis iiiid
  • we present Richard Thompson for interfering with a well and not having a passage to it for the neighbourhood amerced. iiis iiiid

The presentment is signed by the jurors, note with the exception of John Smith, who can write his own name, most make their mark which in themselves are quite interesting as they have obviously been designed to be as unique as possible. A number of the jurors appear to be related to those on the presentment, or in the case of Ridley Havelock, seem to appear themselves.

+ More