April Meeting, 1953

    A STATED Meeting of the Society was held at the Signet Society, No. 46 Dunster Street, Cambridge, on Thursday, 23 April 1953, at a quarter before nine o’clock in the evening, the President, Hon. Robert Walcott, in the chair.

    In the absence of the Recording Secretary, Mr. Walter Muir Whitehill was appointed Secretary pro tempore. The records of the last Stated Meeting were read and approved.

    The President, on behalf of the Corresponding Secretary, reported the receipt of a letter from Mr. Robert Hammond Haynes accepting election to Resident Membership.

    The President reported the death on 2 March 1953 of the Reverend Warner Foote Gookin, a Non-Resident Member, and that on 28 March 1953 of Frederic Adrian Delano, a Corresponding Member.

    The chair appointed the following committees in anticipation of the Annual Meeting:

    To nominate candidates for the several offices,—Messrs. Fred Norris Robinson and Elliott Perkins.

    To examine the Treasurer’s accounts,—Messrs. Willard Goodrich Cogswell and Arthur Stanwood Pier.

    To arrange for the Annual Dinner,—Messrs. Walter Muir Whitehill and Samuel Eliot Morison.

    Mr. Warren Ortman Ault read a paper entitled:

    A Court Roll of Scrooby Manor

    AT Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, in the custody of the Steward of the Archbishop of York, there is preserved a roll of the manor court of Scrooby. It begins with the year 1621 and extends without a break to 1927. That there were earlier rolls there can be no reasonable doubt, and some of them may have survived; but of their existence nothing is known.

    The Scrooby Congregation and the Scrooby region have been subjected to close and repeated scrutiny by researchers, professional and pious.116 Scrooby memorabilia in great variety have been unearthed, though the importance of some items is debatable. The roll of Scrooby, however, has received little attention.117

    The value of the Scrooby roll lies in the knowledge we can gain from its pages of the life and self-directing activity of an English farming community of the seventeenth century.118 “It was during the years 1588–1630 that our Puritan founders were gaining their political education,” said Professor Channing, “it is the England of that time that those who seek the springs of our national life must study.”119 And again he wrote, “The Massachusetts colonists brought with them to their new homes the ideas with which they had been familiar from their childhood.”120

    Life at Scrooby was very familiar to two men who later stood forth as leaders in the formative years of Plymouth Colony—Bradford and Brewster. The latter came to Scrooby at the age of five when his father was appointed “receiver and bailiff, ordinary keeper and government dispatch agent” there.121 After a short stay at Cambridge University and a longer one in the service of one of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State, young Brewster returned to Scrooby in 1589 as his father’s deputy, and upon the latter’s death in 1590, as his successor. From ages 5 to 17 and from 23 to 42, therefore, Brewster lived at Scrooby. During the second interval the importance of the part he played in the affairs of the Scrooby community was doubtless such as his official position, his education and his social status entitled him to play. At Plymouth he was the real leader of the church, whoever the minister, and in the affairs of the Colony he “played a part second only to Bradford in all decisions great and small.122

    William Bradford was born at Austerfield, about two miles north of Scrooby, in 1590, where he was “brought up to follow the plow.” Thus, he was exceedingly familiar with the self-directive ways of agricultural communities in that part of the country. Though not a resident or tenant of Scrooby manor he was a member of the group which met in the home of William Brewster which became, in 1606, a separatist church. He was elected governor of Plymouth Colony in 1621 and held the office almost continuously until his death in 1657. associates “vested almost complete discretionary authority” in him as governor and judge, and among other duties which he assumed was that of making the annual allotment of land and of supervising the plowing, sowing and reaping. There can be no question of the usefulness to Bradford, in the new environment, of his boyhood experiences and observations.

    Scrooby manor had long been part of the temporalities of the archbishops of York. Their rights and liberties there are recorded in Domesday Book, the Hundred Rolls, and the Valor Ecclesiasticus.123 In protesting the attempt of Queen Elizabeth to lease the manor at £40 Archbishop Sandys estimated its value at £170 a year.124 It was a small manor of some 1,500 acres but its value had been enhanced by the construction there, in medieval times, of an archiepiscopal residence, one of half a dozen maintained by the perambulatory archbishops of York. Kings and Queens had been entertained at Scrooby, and it was there that Wolsey spent some of his last remaining days. After Wolsey’s death subsequent archbishops were seldom in residence at Scrooby; they preferred to lease the manor with its fine house and mill. The lease to William Brewster, father of the famous Pilgrim, is dated 1575.125 The Scrooby Congregation may have met in the chapel of the manor house, which would be under the control of the son as successor to his father, and not in the parish church. It is evident that the manor house was a substantial one in Brewster’s day for in 1603 King James I wrote to Matthew Hutton, then archbishop, that “finding no royal residence near Sherwood forest, where he will often have occasion to pass in his journey between England and Scotland, he wishes to make an exchange with the see of York for the houses and manors of Scrooby and Southwell, which are conveniently situated for his forest sports.”126 Evidently no exchange was effected. Tobias (or Tobie) Matthew was archbishop of York, 1606–1628, George Monteigne in 1628, and Samuel Harsnet, 1628–1631.

    At Scrooby a “view of frankpledge with great court of the manor” was held once a year, usually in April. If there was a second meeting it came in October. At this court a constable, two chief pledges and two aletasters were recorded as present and ready to perform the duties of their respective offices; and they took oath that they would faithfully perform the same. Note was sometimes made of bylaw men and other petty officials whose functions conformed to the needs of a farming community. A record was made of the excuses of such free and customary tenants as were not present. Finally, a jury was chosen, usually of fifteen, and it presented defaults of suit of court, breaches of the assize by the brewers and bakers, and the many infringements of the bylaws of the manor. There was also held at Scrooby from time to time a “court of the manor.” Contemporary manuals label such a court a “court baron” and state that it “may be kept every three weeks or, as sometimes, oftener, if it please the lord.”127 At Scrooby this court was held for one purpose only, for the most part, namely, to record the transfer of land and other tenements, whether freehold or customary. A court was held when there was something for it to do, usually twice a year but as many as five times if need be.

    There were thousands of manor courts like Scrooby in seventeenth-century England. So many of them were there that in 1603 Parliament passed “An act to prevent the overcharge of the people by Stewards of Court-Leets and Court-Barons . . . By reason of the great increase of people the said profits and perquisites of Courts are grown to be of better yearly value than in ancient time it hath been.”128 And in 1630 the “Orders and Directions” of the Privy Council “definitely placed no small share of the responsibility for the enforcement of local police regulations upon the Stewards of the Lords’ Courts.”129 The manor court of this period may have been only a “tattered remnant” of its medieval self but it served as an organ of local government as completely and as acceptably as if it were called in the newer fashion “town” or “parish.” In many localities, to be sure, the manor court had already disappeared and a town, township or parish organization carried on the work of local government. This had not happened at Scrooby. The “root principle” of local government was the same in manor, town, or parish: all or nearly all the men of the village were drawn into the service of the community, and on terms of approximate equality.

    The roll of Scrooby is in Latin. What follows is a translation of the record of the first ten years, only, of the existing roll. Those who are well acquainted with the early records of Plymouth Colony will see at once that the way of life in Plymouth differed at many points from the way of life at Scrooby. It has been wisely said that the early New England settlements “were not based on any model; they grew by the exercise of English common-sense and political experience, combined with the circumstances of the case.”130 It would appear from a reading of the Scrooby record that at Plymouth the circumstances of the case were of decided importance.

    Scrooby with Ranskill131

    View of frankpledge of the lord king together with the great court of the manor of the most reverend in Christ father Tobias, by divine providence lord archbishop of York, primate of England and metropolitan, held here the sixteenth day of April, in the year of the reign of our lord James by the grace of God king of England, France and Ireland the nineteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fifth (1621).

    Henry Murden, constable here, came this day to execute his office here.

    George Miller, Henry Watson,132 the chief pledges, came here this day to present those things which pertain to their office.

    William Hyde, William Bradley, the ale-tasters came here this day to present those things which pertain to their office.

    William Ray and certain other Presidents within this liberty essoin themselves for this day.

    Nicholas Chadwick, one of the free tenants of the lord of the aforesaid manor, essoined himself at this manor court by grace of the court.

    Lady Gertrude Chanworth, widow, and certain other customary tenants of the lord of the aforesaid manor essoined themselves at this court of the said manor as sufficiently appears by the roll of the suitors of the great court.

    John Torr, William Hyde, Edward Witton, George Hanson, William Cusworth, William Bradley, Gervase Hanley, Edward Fox, George Cranthorn, Richard Emley, Richard Kendall, Edward Mathew, John Banker, William Dickenson, and Simon Hamon, sworn and charged to enquire and present for the lord king and for the lord of the manor, say as follows:

    In the first place they present upon their oath and say that William Nelson, Robert Ray, Lionel Fells, William Smart and John Shelton are within this liberty and have made default of suit of court to this view of frankpledge. And therefore each of them is in the mercy of the lord, 2d.

    Item, they say that George Crathorne, John Booker, Joan Hanson, widow, and George Newcomb are brewers of ale and common bakers of bread within this liberty and have broken the assise and sold by unlawful measures and weights. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, they say that Widow Nelson (4d.), Gervase Hanley (4d.), Robert——[MS. torn], William Hyde (4d.), William Downes (4d.), William Cusworth (4d.),——Throope (4d.), Thomas Throope (4d.), James Whyte (4d.), Thomas She——, Charles Revell (4d.), Milo

    Green (4d.), George Mylner (4d.), Abraham Ashborne, gentleman (4d.), William Hudson (4d.), Alexander Smyth (2d.), Henry ffullilowe (2d.) and Richard Rippon (2d.) put their cattle in the grain fields before the grain was carried away; to the damage of the neighbors not a little. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy as appears above their heads.

    Item, they say that William Nelson pastured, trampled upon and ate up with his horses the herbage of his neighbors and tenants of the lord, growing in the grain fields of this manor, to their great injury and damage. And therefore, he is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they say that George Mylner did not prepare fuel or— [MS. torn] for himself during the year just past, in accordance with the ordinances of the court in that matter—for which reason he forfeits 12d.

    Item, they say that Joseph Nelson put a mangy mare to pasture in and upon the commonable land within this demesne contrary to the form of the statute made and provided in such cases and therefore he forfeits the penalty fixed in the said statute, namely, 10s.

    Item, they present and say that the reeves, anglice “the Byelawemen,” of the vill of Ranskill permitted a gate called “the new gate,” between the grain field and the common pasture to lie open, to the damage of the men of the said vill not a little. And therefore the said reeves, namely, Robert Lowe and Thomas Shawe are in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they say that Mary Nelson, widow, allowed her pigs to go at large without rings in their noses, to the grave damage and detriment of her neighbors, inhabitants of the vill of Scrooby. And therefore she is in mercy, 6d.

    Affeared by the whole homage.

    At the court of the aforesaid manor it was presented and witnessed by William Cusworthe and Gervase Hanley, two of the customary tenants of the lord of the aforesaid manor, on their oath, that on the twentyeighth day of September last past Edward Bentham in person, by the hands and in the presence of the same William and Gervase according to the custom of the aforesaid manor though out of court, rendered into the lord’s hand all that half or moiety of one bovate of land, meadow and pasture with its appurtenances within this demesne now or formerly in the conjoined or separable tenures or occupations of Edward Fox, Gervase Hanley and Thomas Hanley or one or another of them: to the aid and use of Thomas Cutforthehay, his heirs and assigns in perpetuity, to which Thomas C. the lord granted seisin of it by straw through his steward, according to the custom of the aforesaid manor, to have and to hold to him and his heirs and assigns forever of the lord of the aforesaid manor, by rents, customs and services formerly due from it and lawfully accustomed. And he gives the lord as a fine for ingress 21d. And he did fealty to the lord. And so he is admitted as a tenant therein.

    Court of the manor of the most Reverend in Christ father Tobias by divine providence Lord Archbishop of York, primate of England and Metropolitan, held there the sixth day of November in the year of the reign of our lord James by the grace of God king of England, France and Ireland the nineteenth and of Scotland the fifty-fifth (1621).

    At this court William Bradley and Nicholas Chadwick, free tenants of the lord and suitors of the court of this manor, put themselves at fine with the lord for relieving them of suit of court for one year, that is, until the feast of St. Michael next following the date of this present court. And both of them give the lord for a fine 4d.

    At this court Lady Gertrude Chanworth, Richard Torr, Richard Misterton, George Hanley, Nicholas Chadwick, Mercia Warwell, widow, Agnes Plumber, widow, Richard Emley, Alice Burrowe, widow, Robert Lynley, gentleman, Richard Rippon, John Tarlick and William Kay, junior, customary tenants of the lord in the vill of Scrooby within his manor aforesaid put themselves at fine with the lord for respiting their suit of court from three weeks to three weeks, unless they are specially summoned for the service of the lord of the aforesaid manor. And each of them gives the lord as a fine, 4d.

    At this court Edward Buck, Gervase Buck, Simon Buck, Gervase Mitten, Isabel Lowe, widow, William Smythe in the right of his wife, Robert Broomeskill in the right of his wife, Edward Crumwell, Thomas Crumwell, Thomas Gelder, Edward Mathewe in the right of his wife, Joan Harison, widow, Anna Fitzwilliams, widow, and William Smythe, cripple, free tenants of the lord and suitors of this court place themselves at fine with the lord for respiting to them suit of court from three to three [sic] unless they are summoned for the service of the lord, for all courts following before the feast of St. Michael now next to come. And each of them gives the lord as a fine, 4d.

    William Downe and William Cusworth, customary tenants, present that Edward Brammell on 15 October last past transferred to Edward Cutforthehay his remaining right in a message and a bovate of land, meadow and pasture with appurtenances, which he had from George Hanley for a term of 8 years beginning at the feast of Pentecost last past. Fine, 21d.

    Edward Brammell, in person, in court surrendered to Robert Leroc, gentleman, a barn in Ranskill and 18 acres of land, with pasture, lying in the three several fields of Ranskill, 6 acres in each, for a term of 19 years, at a rental of 51s. 4d a year, in two half-yearly payments. If any payment is more than 10 days in arrears, the surrender becomes invalid. The lord, through his steward granted Robert Leroc seisin by straw, according to the custom of the court. Fine to the lord,–––

    Court of the manor of the most reverend in Christ father Tobias . . . fifteenth day of February . . . (1622).

    Edward Brammell in person in court surrenders 5 acres in the fields of Ranskill to the use of Simon Aumond, to the end of the term of 6 years for which Edward Brammell holds them, for 10s. a year. If any payment is in arrears more than ten days the surrender becomes invalid. The lord, through his steward, granted Simon Aumond seisin by straw, according to the custom of the court. Fine to the lord,––––

    Edward Brammell in person in court surrendered one messuage, 6 acres of land and all the meadow belonging to the messuage in Ranskill, also, pasture for 4 beasts in the commons and commonable lands of Ranskill; all of which he has for a term of years not yet expired; to the use of Henry Bowne, for 32s. a year to Edward Brammell, and 6½d. a year to the lord as chief rent (Admission by straw. Fine to the lord, blank).

    William Baxter and Margaret his wife came in person into court and Margaret alone and separately first examined by the steward and admitting that she was by no means coerced, they surrender a cottage with appurtenances in Scrooby now occupied by Elizabeth Oxley and Richard Oxley her son, to the use of the aforesaid Richard Oxley and his heirs and assigns forever; for the usual rent, customs and services (Admission by straw. Fine to the lord, 1d.).

    John Nelson in court in person surrendered his right etc. in two tofts, one barn and whatever lands with appurtenances he had in Scrooby from the surrender of Marie Nelson, widow, his mother, to the use of Thomas Cutforthehay, for the unexpired part of the terms of years (Admission by straw. Fine to the lord, blank).

    View of frankpledge of the lord king together with great court of the manor of the most Reverend in Christ father Tobias by divine providence Lord Archbishop of York primate of England and Metropolitan, held there the thirtieth day of April in the year of the reign of our lord James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France and Ireland the twentieth, and of Scotland the fifty-fifth (1622).

    Robert Lowe, constable there, came this day to execute his aforesaid office there.

    Thomas Chapman, Roger Chambers, chief pledges there, came this day to present those things which pertain to their office.

    William Nelson and many other residents within this liberty essoined themselves by grace of the court as sufficiently appears in the roll of residents.

    Nicholas Chadwick and certain other free tenants of the lord and suitors of the aforesaid manor court essoined themselves at this great court by grace of the court as sufficiently appears in the roll of suitors.

    Lady Gertrude Chaworth, widow, and not a few other customary tenants of the lord of the manor aforesaid essoined themselves at this great court of the common suit as sufficiently appears in the roll of suitors.

    John Torr, William Hyde, Thomas Throope, Edward Wytton, Alexander Smythe, George Hanson, William Cusworth, Thomas Cutforthehay, William Bradley, Gervase Hanley, George Crawthorne, Edward Fox, Richard Rippon, Richard Emley, Richard Kendall, John Barker, Edward Mathewe, sworn and charged to enquire and present for the lord king and for the lord of the manor say as follows:

    In the first place they say and present on their oath that Robert Holland and Anthony Denton, residents within this liberty, on this day have made default of suit of court. And therefore both of them are in the mercy of the lord, 2d.

    Item, they say that Edward Buck and Simon Buck, free tenants of the lord of the manor aforesaid and suitors of the court of the said manor for lands in Ranskill, have made default of suit of court at the aforesaid great court. And therefore both of them are in the mercy of the lord, 3d.

    Item, they say that George Crawthorne, John Bowker, George Newrom and Joan Hanson, widow, are common brewers and bakers within this liberty. And they have broken the assize of bread and ale by selling by unlawful weights and measures. And therefore each of them is in the mercy of the lord, 4d.

    Item, they say that James Whyte by his servants has kept his cattle at large in the grain fields of this liberty contrary to the ordinances of the court, on account of which he has forfeited to the lord 3s. 4d.

    Item, they say the same James frequently from day to day with his horses and his sheep eats up, depastures, tramples and destroys the herbage and the grain of his neighbors in the grain fields of this liberty to the grave damage and injury of the inhabitants and tenants of the same liberty. And therefore the said James is in the mercy of the lord 10s.

    Item, they say that Mary Nelson, widow, has allowed her ditch or dike next to the grain field to be broken open and accordingly she is in mercy, 4d.

    Item, they say that Brian ffraget broke open the pound and took away his beasts contrary to the peace, etc. And therefore he is in the mercy of the lord, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they say that Christopher Cramsdall has allowed three breaks in his dikes or fences. And Robert Lowe allowed one, Bartholomew Whyte, one, and Robert Brownstall, one. And therefore Christopher is in mercy 18d. And each of the others is in mercy 6d.

    And it is ordered by the court that every tenant of this manor shall sufficiently repair his dikes and other fences in the grain fields before the next feast of Saint John the Baptist and keep them so from then on under pain of 10s.

    Affeared by the homage.

    Sum of this court 22s. 6d.

    Court of the manor . . . 26th day of May . . . (1622).

    Agnes Plummer, widow, comes to this court in person and surrenders the half of one toft, built upon, with appurtenances in Scrooby, and two and one-half virgates of meadow in a place called Dunward, in the meadows of Scrooby, and all other cottages, lands and tenements which she has in this demesne; to the use of John Stubbes, his heirs and assigns, to whom the steward gave seisin by straw, to hold of the lord of the manor forever for the accustomed rents, customs and services. Fine,––. And he did fealty.

    View of frankpledge . . . fifteenth day of October . . . (1622).

    Robert Lowe, constable there, came this day to present the things that pertain to his office.

    Thomas Chapman (William Cusworth),133 Roger Chambers (William Burgen),134 chief pledges there, came this day to present those things which pertain to their office.

    William Cusworth, William Burgen, ale-tasters there, came this day to present those things which pertain to their office.

    William Nelson, gentleman, and not a few other residents of this liberty this day essoined themselves of the common essoin [sic].

    William Thrope, gentleman, and Nicholas Chadwick, free tenants of the lord of the manor aforesaid, essoined themselves at this court of the manor by grace of the court.

    Edward Bullock in the right of Lady Gertrude Chaworth his wife and many other customary tenants of the lord of the manor aforesaid essoined themselves at this court of the manor.

    William Hyde, John Torr, Edward Witton, William Bradley, George Hanson, William Cusworth, Gervase Hanley, Alexander Smythe, Thomas Cutforthay, George Crawthorne, Edward Fox, John Barker, Edward Mathewe, Robert Hobson, impaneled, sworn and charged to enquire and present for the lord king and for the lord of the manor say as follows:

    In the first place they present and say on their oath that George Clarke, Robert Ray, Robert Golland and Alexander Mynskey are residents of this liberty and have made default of suit of court at this view of frankpledge. And therefore each of them is in the mercy of the lord, 2d.

    Item, they present and say that Edward Fox, George Crawthorne and John Booker are common brewers of this liberty and inhabitants of the vill of Scrooby aforesaid. And that George Newcombe and widow Hanson, inhabitants of the vill of Ranskill in the same liberty, are also common brewers and bakers. And that each of them broke the assize of ale and bread by selling the same with unlawful measures and weights. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, they present that George Mylner and John Fitch did not prepare fuel for winter according to the ordinance of the court, consequently both of them have forfeited to the lord 6s. 8d.

    Item, they present that George Mylner, Edward Fox, Thomas Throope, Robert Undie, John Booker and George Hanson have kept geese in this liberty to the great injury of their neighbors in damaging their herbage and grain in the meadows and fields. And therefore George Mylner is in the lord’s mercy 6d., and each of the others is in the lord’s mercy 4d.

    Item, they say that Mary Nelson allowed her pigs to wander at large by night outside the styes and to enter the grain fields of this liberty to the damage and injury of the neighbors not a little. And therefore she is in the lord’s mercy 12d.

    Henry Boune comes to court in person and surrenders 6 acres of land and all the meadow belonging to the messuage in Ranskill within this demesne; also pasture for four beasts in the common and commonable lands of Ranskill (all of which he had from the surrender of Edward Bramell for a term of 8 years not yet expired); to the use of John Bell, for the remaining part of the 8 years. Whose fine for entrance is 3½d.

    Edward Brammell came to this court in person and surrendered those 4 acres more or less lying in the fields of Ranskill, and now or formerly in the occupation of John Bell; and all his common pasture in the commons and commonable lands of Ranskill. To the use of the said John Bell, for a term of 17 years, for 8s. a year. Three and one-half pence fine to the lord for entrance.

    Court of the manor . . . 28th day of January . . . (1623).

    William Throope, gentleman, came to this court in person and surrendered 4 acres of land in the fields of Scrooby near a hedge there which is called the “greengate hedge,” between the land of Thomas Throope on the east and the land of Lawrence Wylbow on the north. And 4 virgates of meadow in the meadows of Scrooby called the h’ndyke between the meadow of the said Thomas Throope on the east and the meadow formerly of the said Lawrence Wylbows on the north; all of which William Throope had of the surrender of George Hanson and of Katherine his wife in mortgagio. To the use of Thomas Cutforthehay. Fine to the lord for ingress, 6d. He does fealty.

    It is presented at this court by William Cusworth and George Hanson, two customary tenants, on oath, that on the 20th of December last Edward Burroughes came before them in person and surrendered one cottage and croft or curtilage adjacent to it with appurtenances in Scrooby, now and formerly occupied by Alice Burroughes, his mother, to the use of the said Alice Burroughes. Fine to the lord, 1d. She does fealty.

    View of frankpledge . . . twenty second day of April. . . (1623).

    Thomas Shawe, constable there, came this day to execute his office there as he ought to do.

    William Hyde, George Hanson, chief pledges there, came this day to present the things which pertain to their office, etc.

    William Burgen, William Cusworth, ale-tasters there, came this day to present the things pertaining to their office, etc.

    Charles Revell and many other residents of this liberty essoined themselves this day by grace of the court as sufficiently appears in the roll of residents.

    Nicholas Chadwick, free suitor of this court, essoined himself this day.

    Ralph Bullock, esquire, customary tenant of this manor in the right of Lady Gertrude his wife, and not a few other customary tenants of the lord of the aforesaid manor essoined themselves at this court of the manor aforesaid as appears in the roll of the suitors of the court.

    John Torr, William Hyde, Edward Witton, Alexander Smythe, William Cusworth, Gervase Hanley, Edward Fox, Thomas Cutforthhay, George Hanson, Richard Kendall, Edward Mathewe, George Crawthorne, John Barker, William Dickenson, Simon Hanson, Joseph Nelson, impaneled, sworn and charged to enquire and present as well for the lord king as for the lord of the manor, say as follows:

    In the first place, on their oath they present that John Skelton and Anthony Denton are residents of this liberty and have made default of suit of court this day. And therefore both of them are in the mercy of the lord, 2d.

    Item, they say that William Bradley, William Ray and Christopher Cramsdall, customary tenants of the lord, have made default of suit of the court of the manor aforesaid held here on the day and in the year above mentioned. Accordingly each is in mercy, 3d.

    Item, they present that George Crawthorne, Edward Fox and John Bowker are common brewers and bakers in this liberty. And that they have broken the assize of ale and bread in selling with unlawful weights and measures. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, that George Newcombe and the widow Hanson are similarly brewers and bakers in the liberty of Ranskill and have broken the assize as above. And therefore, both are in mercy, 4d.

    Item, they present that Robert Ray by his wife has broken the hedge of his neighbors. Accordingly Robert is in the lord’s mercy, 6d.

    Item, they present that Robert Broomeskill (6d.), Robert Lowe (6d.), William Daveson (2d.), John Barker (4d.), William Dickenson (2d.), John Heppenstull (6d.), Edward Bank (6d.), Thomas Chapman (2d.), Richard Kendall (2d.), Ralph Burnet (6d.), Thomas Shawe (4d.), have allowed diverse breaks, anglice gappes, in the fences of the grain fields contrary to the ordinance of the court, wherefore, each of them has forfeited a penalty as appears over their heads, namely, 2d. for each break, in all amounting to–––

    Item, they say on their oath that it has been sufficiently shown them by the witness of divers persons worthy of faith and by writing offered in evidence that a marriage in accordance with the laws and ordinances of holy Church was lawfully solemnized and took place in or about the month of November in the year of the Lord one thousand five hundred and eighty three between Roger Rippon and Ursula Hare. Which same Roger and Ursula had a son Richard Rippon, lawfully procreated by them and present here in court. They say further that in the absence of the same Roger Rippon, he being supposed dead, a certain Humphrey Castle, Clerk, took the aforesaid Ursula as his wife and later died, the aforesaid Roger Rippon surviving Humphrey. Wherefore it is sufficiently clear that any surrender made in the court of this manor by the said Humphrey Castle and Ursula his wife in name stands as altogether invalid and insufficient in law to convey any land or tenements from the said Ursula and her heirs according to the custom of the manor aforesaid. Whereupon the aforesaid Richard Rippon comes to this same court in person. And here in open court he renders into the lord’s hand all that moiety or half of one bovate of land, meadow and pasture with appurtenances within this demesne now or formerly in the tenure or occupation of the same Richard Ripon or his assigns. And all his right, state, title, use, claim and demand of whatever kind from and in the same premises and in every part of them to the aid and use of Bartholomew White, his heirs and assigns forever. To which Bartholomew Whyte the lord by his steward here granted seisin by straw according to the custom of the manor to have and to hold to him and his heirs and assigns forever of the lord of the manor aforesaid and his successors according to the custom of the said manor for the accustomed rents and services formerly due and by law accustomed. And he gives as a fine for having this state and ingress 21d. And he did fealty to the lord. And so he is admitted as tenant.

    Richard Emley is elected reeve in this demesne to serve in the same office during one whole year now to follow. And he makes a pledge to exercise this office.

    Alexander Smythe, Lionel ffells, are elected to the office of ale-tasters in this liberty to serve in the same office during one whole year now to follow. And they make a pledge to exercise the aforesaid office.

    Court of the manor . . . 13th of May . . . (1623).

    It is presented at this court by Edward Witton and George Hanson, two customary tenants, that on the 23rd of April last Joseph Nelson came before them in person and surrendered all those three acres and one rood of land just as they are now sown with wheat within this demesne, namely, two roods and a half in the field called “the peasefeld” at or near . . . there called “the flashestrete” and one other rood in the middle of the same field and two selions containing one acre and a half, namely, both of them containing three roods, beyond a dike abutting “hurlande” and three roods abutting the street next to “the peasefeld” aforesaid. To the use of William Nelson and Thomas Throope, from the 23rd of April aforesaid to the feast of St. Martin the Blessed in winter next to come.

    Court of the manor . . . 22nd of July . . . (1623).

    To this court came Mary Nelson, widow, and Joseph Nelson, one of her sons, in person and surrendered two messuages or tenements, two tofts and two bovates of land, meadow and pasture belonging to the said messuages, tenements or tofts lying within the fields and territory of Scrooby, which they had for a term of years from the surrender of Robert Wylbow. To the use of Bartholomew Whyte, for the unexpired part of the term of years. Fine to the lord, 3s. 4d.

    View of frankpledge . . . 14th day of October . . . (1623).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

    They present and say that Milo Greenby placed his sheaves of grain in his kitchen very near the fire to the great peril of Milo himself and of his neighbors from the burning of their houses. Since this is contrary to the ordinance of the court he forfeits to the lord, 6s. 8d.

    Item, they present and say that Edward Buck and William Dickenson separately kept their pigs in the grain fields of Ranskill before the grain was ready to be reaped. And therefore both of them are in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they say that William Dickenson since the last view of frankpledge made an insult and affray in upon Ralph Burnet at Ranskill within the jurisdiction of the court against the peace of the lord king and drew blood from him. Accordingly William Dickenson is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    At this view of frankpledge William Dickenson was elected to the office of constable to serve in the said office within this liberty for one entire year. And he is sworn to execute that office.

    View of frankpledge . . . the 17th day of April . . . (1627).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

    They present and say that Alexander Mynsher, Edward Fox, John Bowker,––Burrowe, widow, and Thomas Throope allowed their geese to wander at large in the meadows of Scrooby and Ranskill, to the damage of their neighbors. And therefore, each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present that Robert Lowe (12d.), William Dickenson (4d.), George Hanson (4d.), Simon Hamond (2d.), Nicholas Spenser (2d.),–––Kendall (2d.), widow, did not make their fences next to the grain fields. And therefore, each of them is in the lord’s mercy as appears over their heads. It stands in all at 2s. 2d.

    They present that William Hobson is a common breaker of his neighbor’s hedges. Accordingly he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Whereas formerly all the lord’s tenants, inhabitants of this demesne, showed themselves negligent in observing the ancient customs of the aforesaid manor in grinding their grain at the lord’s mill in the aforesaid demesne; and in excuse of their contempt in this matter they gave the court here to understand that they had often carried their grain to the aforesaid mill only to have it ground very tardily, on which account they suffered much damage. Wherefore, with the assent of the lord of the manor’s steward and bailiff in behalf of the same lord and at the petition of the aforesaid tenants through the aforesaid jurors in their behalf, it is agreed and ordained that each tenant shall carry his grain or cause it to be carried to the lord’s mill as often as he shall need grain ground for his use, and the grain so carried he shall allow to remain at the lord’s mill for the space of 24 hours at least, under pain of forfeiting to the lord 6s. 8d. for each default in this matter. And if it shall happen that any grain so carried to the aforesaid mill shall not be ground within the time aforesaid then he shall be allowed freely to carry that grain away at his pleasure.

    View of frankpledge . . . 6th day of May . . . (1628).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

    Item, they say that––Tybot, widow, and Gervase Tybot, her son, put their horses to graze in the grain fields contrary to the ordinance of the court. And therefore she is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present and say that Andey Barlowe always drives his beasts through and over the grain fields unleashed, anglice loose. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Court of the manor . . . 10th day of March . . . (1628).

    William Downes, Richard Torr, Thomas Cutforthay, Gervase Hanley, Alexander Smyth, George Hanson, Robert Lowe, Edward Mathewe, Edward Fox, Nicholas Hydes, William Bradley, George Crawthorne, jurors impaneled to enquire for the lord of the manor present and say as follows:138

    Inprimis they present that William Nelson, gent., hath taken synce Martinmas last out of the lower Parke sixe yewe trees.

    Item, that the said William Nelson hath sould unto Willyam Gayton two trees.

    Item, that the said William Nelson hath sould unto George Crawthorne xxij joystes from the Green Chamber Roome.

    Item, they present that Richard Torr hath felled twae trees for Yule-would out of the same parke.

    Item presentant quod Linley Richardson, gent., hath felled for Yule wood there twae trees.

    View of frankpledge . . . 5th day of October . . . (1629).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

    Item, they present that Edward Fox allowed his geese to enter the meadow of Scrooby, to the nuisance of the neighbors. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 3s.

    Item, they present that William Browne put his beasts on le Comon where by right he ought not. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present that Brian ffurgat put his pigs on le Comon unrung. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present that Henry Hanson put his horses in the meadow of Scrooby where by right he ought not. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present and say that Richard Torr (5s.) and William Cusworth (2s. 6d.), impaneled on the jury to enquire for the lord king and for the lord of the manor, have made default. And therefore both of them fined as appears over their heads.

    View of frankpledge . . . 3rd day of April . . . (1630).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

    Item, they present that Richard Torr rescued his pigs from the reeve. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that Robert Lowe broke the common pound. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that John Cransdall did not make a fence between himself and the neighbors. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present that Robert Bromeskill did not make his fences in the grain fields. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 12d.

    Item, they present that Richard Torr, impaneled on the jury to enquire for the lord King and for the lord of the manor, withdrew in contempt of court. And therefore a fine is imposed of 5s.

    Item, they say that George Hanson, impaneled and sworn for the lord King and for the lord of the manor, carelessly withdrew at the time of the charge. And therefore he is at a fine of 5s.

    View of frankpledge . . . 20th day of October . . . (1630).

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

    In the first place they present and say that Nicholas Hyde and Humphrey Denby were elected as Burlymen for this present year. And that both of them neglected the aforesaid office. And therefore both of them are in the lord’s mercy, 20d.

    Item, they present and say that Robert Hyde, Nicholas Hyde and Marcus Stockdale broke the common pound. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that William Wood and John Holliday are common destroyers and breakers of their neighbors’ hedges. And therefore both of them are in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that William Dickenson, Robert Lowe and George Ward kept their beasts in the grain fields contrary to the penalty specified in such cases. And therefore each of them forfeits the penalty, namely, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that William Revell (4d.), George Crawthorne (8d.) and Edward Fox (8d.), William Denman (4d.) and George Newcombe (4d.) are common brewers and bakers in this liberty. And that each of them broke the assize of ale and bread by selling the same with unlawful measures and weights. And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy as appears over their heads.

    Item of Richard Torr and Henrie Watson because they did not mend a dike after notice given by le Bylawmen, both of them, 4d.

    Item, they present that Henry Watson refused to carry a feeble man on order of the constable. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, they present that Robert Key neglected to watch by day. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, they present that Edward Daws, Thomas Throope and Thomas Shepard neglected to accompany le Burlymen on notice to mend the roads.142 And therefore each of them is in the lord’s mercy, 4d.

    Item, they present that William Lambert and Robert Key neglected to watch by night and therefore both of them are in the lord’s mercy, 6d.

    Item, they present that Henry Watson cut down and carried off anglice Whynnes from le More contrary to the penalty set in such cases. And therefore the aforesaid Henry Watson has forfeited the aforesaid penalty, namely, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that George Ward similarly cut down and carried off le Whinnes. And therefore the said George forfeits the aforesaid penalty, namely, 3s. 4d.

    Item, they present that Henry Watson kept more beasts on le Comon than by right he ought. So that he “surcharged” the aforesaid common. And therefore he has forfeited to the lord 20s. However this is affeered at 6s. 8d.

    Item, they present that Thomas Shepard broke the common pound. And therefore he is in the lord’s mercy, 3s. 4d.

    Commentary

    As an organ of local government the manor court of Scrooby conformed in a general way to the pattern of the other manor courts of its day. This will be apparent in the comments which follow. They are necessarily brief but readers who are unfamiliar with records of this sort may find them helpful.

    The Constable. The office of constable has a long history.143 There was never a town without a constable, it is said, and certainly the converse was true—the existence of a constable was deemed sufficient proof of the existence of a township.144 The town constable of the seventeenth century had many important duties under the common law as a conservator of the peace, and, in addition, many duties were imposed upon him by statute, especially in Tudor times.145 Selden, the seventeenth-century antiquarian and lawyer, said, “The parish makes the constable, and when the constable is made he governs the parish.”146 The constable of Scrooby was chosen in the manor court at the April view of frankpledge. Whether he was chosen by the court itself, or by the bailiff, or by house-row does not appear. He must serve “one entire year” and in addition to his other duties present an account.147 Only one of the Scrooby constables chosen between 1621 and 1630 was certainly a free tenant.148 The names of the several constables recur in the lists of chief pledges, jurors and ale-tasters. They also appear with disquieting frequency among those fined for allowing gaps in their fences, violating pasture regulations, cutting down and carting away trees and breaking the common pound. One constable, duly chosen, withdrew “in contempt of court” and was fined 3s. 6d. Perhaps the responsibilities of the office weighed upon his mind. A town constable of Wiltshire begged the Justices of the Peace (1616) to discharge him from his office, “for as much as I am unlearned, and by reason thereof am constrayned to goe two miles from my house to have the helpe of a scrivener to reade such warrants as are sent to mee, and am a poore man.”149 In 1630 the Privy Council directed “that the petty constables in all parishes be chosen of the abler sort of parishioners, and the office not to be put upon the poore sort, if it may be.”150

    Chief Pledges. “The view of frankpledge of the lord king,” as held in Scrooby was doubdess but a faint counterpart of what it had been in earlier times, but two chief pledges were still appointed regularly. Traditionally a chief pledge spoke for the men in his tithing, and, in former times a special effort was made to see that everyone was in a tithing. Lambard, who wrote in 1614, described a tithing as follows: “Everie one of those ten men of the companies should be suretie and pledge for forth-coming of his fellowes; so that if any harme were done by any of those ten against the peace then the rest of the ten should be amerced, if he of their company that did the harme should flie and were not forth-coming to answer to that wherewith he should be charged.”151 There is no evidence in the rolls of Scrooby that this plan of “joint personal bail” was in active use. Indeed, the only reference to the functions of the chief pledges is at the view of 1628 when the two of them were fined one shilling each because “they did not bring the names of the residents within the liberty as pertains to their office.” This may well have been the principal function of their office. Elsewhere in England, in this period, they acted as subordinates and assistants of the constable.152

    Ale-Tasters. At each view at Scrooby two ale-tasters “come to present what pertains to their office.” And the jury presents, prompted by the ale-tasters, no doubt, that certain residents of the liberty have broken the assize of bread and beer by using unlawful weights and measures. Local regulation of the weight or measure, price and quality of bread and beer is a familiar feature of manorial court rolls of the middle ages and breaches of the regulation are very familiar.153 In this matter as in so many others the Tudor monarchs lent their authority and that of parliament to the task of rendering local bylaws more uniform and more enforceable. The rolls of Scrooby throw little light upon the actual provisions of the assize to which reference is so frequently made. In Wiltshire, in 1600, licensed brewers were directed by the Justices of the Peace to “brewe and sell none other but good and wholesome Ale and beare well sodden and well brewed of wholesome grayne as it ought to be and [they] shall serve and utter noe beare or Ale . . . but at such rate and price as some of the Justices of the Peace of this County is allowed to sett by authority of the statute of xxiii Henry VIII. . . .”154 Among the liberties of the archbishops of York in their Nottinghamshire lands was that of appointing their own Justices of the Peace.

    Bylawmen. Frequent mention is made in the rolls of Scrooby of bylawmen. Apparendy there were two for Scrooby itself and two for the hamlet of Ranskill. How the bylawmen were chosen does not appear, but elsewhere in England at this time there is record of their appointment by the jury155 and of their election by the manor court.156 Bylawmen strove to enforce village regulations and reported infractions thereof to the jury of neighbors. The plowing, planting and harvesting of the open fields called for considerable co-operation on the part of the tenants whose acres lay scattered in the fields. Rights in pasture and meadow could not be adjusted automatically. Roads and paths must be maintained, fire hazards eliminated, cattle kept in restraint. Collective regulation of these matters in the form of bylaws enacted by village communities can be seen in court rolls of the thirteenth century and doubtless it is as old as openfield farming itself.157 Not infrequently a village community, whether as town, manor or parish, would collect and set forth its current bylaws in more or less complete form. For the most part, however, local records make note only of the breach of certain bylaws and we are obliged, as in the roll of the manor court of Scrooby, to read between the lines. It is significant that in some communities the bylawmen were called “fieldsmen.”158

    Fences and Hedges. Tenants of Scrooby and Ranskill must keep their fences, hedges and dikes unbroken or pay a fine for every gap. Sometimes a date is set, before which all fences, hedges and dikes must be put in good repair, under penalty. In other local records of this period this obligation to keep a tight fence is set forth explicitly. “Every man shall keepe a sufficient fence between his own ground and his neighbours and between his owne ground and the common upon paine of 3s. 4d. for every weekes default.”159 “It is ordered by the assent of all the tenants that each tenant shall well and completely repair and keep up all hedges and dikes between tenement and tenement before the feast of All Saints under pain of 6d. to the lord and 3d. to the church.”160 At Scrooby the whole fine went to the lord of the manor.

    Roads and Ways. The problem of maintaining roads, ways and paths in usable condition and free from nuisances and obstructions was an especially important one in farming communities like Scrooby where the lands of the tenants lay dispersed in the great fields. For centuries the village communities struggled with the problem as is abundantly testified by medieval court rolls. In summoning the tenants of Scrooby to repair the roads the bylawmen were calling upon them to fulfill an obligation that goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. The Highway Act of 2 and 3 Philip and Mary applied to roads leading to market towns and not to merely local roads and ways.161

    Fuel for Winter. In the portion of the roll of Scrooby here printed are two entries which reveal the concern of the court, and its lord, that every resident should lay in a supply of fuel sufficient for the winter. Rather a heavy fine is exacted for failure to do so. Many local communities of the period had the same problem. At Edingley, for example, a manor belonging to the church of Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, the record reads, “ordinatum est that every cottager within the viewe of this leete shall provide for his hous between this April 21 and Michelmas next one waine or cart loade of coales or two loades of wood against winter nexte upon paine to pay to the lorde of the leete, for every loade wantinge, vis. viiid.” This bylaw was re-enacted at almost every court from 1588 to 1606, in which year two “overseers” were chosen to see to it that the cottagers had all done their duty.162 Parliament’s concern for the problem of sufficient fuel is shown in statutes beginning with the reign of Henry VIII in which standards of weight and measure were established.163

    Fire Hazards. At the view of April, 1623, a Scrooby resident was fined for placing “his sheaves of grain in his kitchen very near the fire,” contrary to the ordinance of the court. Fines were exacted, also, for failure to keep chimneys clean and in good repair. Scrooby village was by no means alone in its fear of fire. Bylaws dealing with this menace are numerous and precise. It had been found to be especially hazardous to dry hemp or flax inside the house, and especially to separate the husk from the fibre near a fire; both are highly inflammable.164 Chimneys were not to be built of mud or clay, and cracked or defective chimneys might not be used. Furthermore, chimneys must be swept from time to time, at least four times yearly.165 Provision for fighting fires was sometimes made. At Cressingham, Co. Norfolk, “it was ordered by all the chief pledges that any inhabitants of this vill who has a plow shall maintain in his garden one sufficient ladder of 16 staves and one sufficient water shovel; and he that has 2 plows, 2 ladders and 2 watershovels, and every other inhabitant 1 watershovel, under pain of 12d. for each husbandman for each offences and 6d. for each cottager.”166

    Pasture Rights. At Scrooby, as elsewhere in England at this period, offenses against the bylaws regulating the rights of pasture were very numerous. Some residents of Scrooby kept more cattle upon the common than they had a right to do, surcharging it. Others put their cattle upon the common without right. On one occasion seventeen tenants were fined for putting their cattle in the grain fields before the grain had been carted away. Others were fined for allowing their horses or sheep to trample down or eat up the growing grain, to the damage of their neighbors. Pasture rights were valuable; the pastoral part of the village economy was scarcely less important, in many localities of England in the seventeenth century, than the tilling of the soil. The regulation of pasture rights had been a chief responsibility of the village communities from Anglo-Saxon times.167 Waste land was much scarcer in the seventeenth century than in the tenth and cattle were more valuable. “Capitalist” farmers, sometimes nonresident, sought to crowd the poorer class of cottager off the common, and bylaws establishing their rights and fixing a “stint” are very common in the local records of the time. In New England, also, pasture was more plentiful in early times than later on.168

    The Problem of Pigs. The pigs of Scrooby must be confined in styes by night. The court roll of a Lincolnshire manor puts it this way—“every man shall have their swine-cotes sufficiently made, and their swine . . . to be styed uppe before sonne sett, and so to kepe them styed till sonne rise, in payne of xiid.”169 Furthermore, Scrooby pigs must not be allowed to roam unrung by day lest they damage the neighbors. The ringing of pigs goes back several centuries in the history of English village communities, “by which ringing they will not be able to uproot the soil,” as a local record of the fourteenth century puts it.170 In medieval Manchester, “pigs, as the most perverse animals, required the firmest and most vigorous handling;. . . hundreds of folio pages of jury orders relate to swine alone and their numerous misdeeds and nuisances.”171 The pigs of Plymouth, in the New World, were as troublesome as those of Scrooby in the Old, and they and their owners were dealt with in much the same way.172

    Surrender and Admission. The rolls of Scrooby reveal that there was a “brisk traffic in land” at this time. The tenants were copyholders, of course, and the conditions of their tenure were determined by the custom of the manor. By this time, however, the common law courts had “pruned the luxuriance of manorial customs,”173 and imposed upon them a standard of reasonableness. Among the “customs generally applicable to all copyhold estates” were the following: tenants could not convey land by deed, but only by surrender and admittance; the incoming tenant must pay his lord a fine for his admission; the fine, though arbitrary, must be “reasonable,” that is, not more than two years’ improved value of the property; the tenant owes fealty to his lord; his only evidence of title is a copy of the court roll.174