| Great Horwood History |
|
Medieval and Later Times
Rod Moulding
The Manor of Great Horwood
Medieval Great Horwood was a reasonably typical South Midlands village, part of the Midland zone of nucleated settlement and common field agriculture. In medieval times the vast majority of the population of these islands lived in villages and were engaged in agriculture and related occupations.
The manor was the basic unit of rural organisation, and dominated the community. The village then consisted of the lord of the manor, whether absentee or living at the manor, together with a number of free tenants and unfree (villein) tenants who together co-operated in cultivating and living off the village lands. The lord of the manor reserved for his own use a portion of the estate, known as the demesne (the home farm), which was cultivated for him by his dependent tenants in return for their land holdings, the villeins working regularly two or three days a week (in some manors, although not in Great Horwood) with additional seasonal work, and the free men (who paid money rents) performing only light and occasional tasks, or even none at all.
The manor of Great Horwood did not comprise all of the parish of Great Horwood. The hamlet of Singleborough lay, then as now, within the parish but formed a separate territorially-discrete manor and township, consisting of one settlement surrounded by its own fields, with no intermingling of its lands with those of Great Horwood. Additionally, a small part of the village and lands of the township of Great Horwood itself was excluded from the manor.
Medieval Great Horwood was a reasonably typical South Midlands village, part of the Midland zone of nucleated settlement and common field agriculture. In medieval times the vast majority of the population of these islands lived in villages and were engaged in agriculture and related occupations.
The manor was the basic unit of rural organisation, and dominated the community. The village then consisted of the lord of the manor, whether absentee or living at the manor, together with a number of free tenants and unfree (villein) tenants who together co-operated in cultivating and living off the village lands. The lord of the manor reserved for his own use a portion of the estate, known as the demesne (the home farm), which was cultivated for him by his dependent tenants in return for their land holdings, the villeins working regularly two or three days a week (in some manors, although not in Great Horwood) with additional seasonal work, and the free men (who paid money rents) performing only light and occasional tasks, or even none at all.
The manor of Great Horwood did not comprise all of the parish of Great Horwood. The hamlet of Singleborough lay, then as now, within the parish but formed a separate territorially-discrete manor and township, consisting of one settlement surrounded by its own fields, with no intermingling of its lands with those of Great Horwood. Additionally, a small part of the village and lands of the township of Great Horwood itself was excluded from the manor.
History of the Manor
Great Horwood was granted by William the Conqueror to Walter Gifford de Bolebec, Earl of Longueville and one of William’s key lieutenants. Gifford accompanied William at the Battle of Hastings and was one of the knights who killed King Harold. After the battle Gifford received land in ten English counties. He died in France in 1084. His son, also Walter, was a Domesday commissioner and Keeper of Windsor Castle; he was created first Earl of Buckingham in 1100 but died in 1102.
The younger Walter bestowed the manor of Great Horwood and a number of other land-holdings upon the Cluniac priory of St Faith in Longueville-sur-Scie, Normandy, which his father had founded. The gift was confirmed by Henry I in 1106–9. Shortly thereafter a cell or sub-priory was established five miles away at Newton Longville, to which Great Horwood was attached together with a number of other manors.
The Newton Longville sub-priory seems to have been little more than an estate office staffed by a small number of monks sent over from Normandy, who appear to have governed the priory’s English estates with a relatively light hand. In 1367, perhaps because of its vulnerable status as an alien priory during the Hundred Years War, and possibly not entirely voluntarily, the priory granted a twenty-year lease of the manor of Newton Longville and its ‘appurtenant manors’, including Great Horwood, to Nicholas de Tamworth, the King’s Admiral and Captain of Calais. Two years later the English lands of alien priories such as Newton Longville were temporarily confiscated, and for the next 45 years the manor of Newton Longville and, with it, Great Horwood were leased from the Crown. The lessees were successively Nicholas de Tamworth, his widow Joan and her second husband Gilbert Talbot; in 1399 a Thomas Tutbury; and from 1403 Sir Ralph Rocheford, whose English residence was in Lincolnshire. In 1414 the confiscation of the Priory’s interest became permanent, and in 1441, shortly after Rocheford’s death, the manor was granted to New College, Oxford. The College retained the manor until the manorial system was effectively abolished in 1922, finally selling the honorary title of Lord of the Manor of Great Horwood to D. Jack Smith in 1997.
Great Horwood was granted by William the Conqueror to Walter Gifford de Bolebec, Earl of Longueville and one of William’s key lieutenants. Gifford accompanied William at the Battle of Hastings and was one of the knights who killed King Harold. After the battle Gifford received land in ten English counties. He died in France in 1084. His son, also Walter, was a Domesday commissioner and Keeper of Windsor Castle; he was created first Earl of Buckingham in 1100 but died in 1102.
The younger Walter bestowed the manor of Great Horwood and a number of other land-holdings upon the Cluniac priory of St Faith in Longueville-sur-Scie, Normandy, which his father had founded. The gift was confirmed by Henry I in 1106–9. Shortly thereafter a cell or sub-priory was established five miles away at Newton Longville, to which Great Horwood was attached together with a number of other manors.
The Newton Longville sub-priory seems to have been little more than an estate office staffed by a small number of monks sent over from Normandy, who appear to have governed the priory’s English estates with a relatively light hand. In 1367, perhaps because of its vulnerable status as an alien priory during the Hundred Years War, and possibly not entirely voluntarily, the priory granted a twenty-year lease of the manor of Newton Longville and its ‘appurtenant manors’, including Great Horwood, to Nicholas de Tamworth, the King’s Admiral and Captain of Calais. Two years later the English lands of alien priories such as Newton Longville were temporarily confiscated, and for the next 45 years the manor of Newton Longville and, with it, Great Horwood were leased from the Crown. The lessees were successively Nicholas de Tamworth, his widow Joan and her second husband Gilbert Talbot; in 1399 a Thomas Tutbury; and from 1403 Sir Ralph Rocheford, whose English residence was in Lincolnshire. In 1414 the confiscation of the Priory’s interest became permanent, and in 1441, shortly after Rocheford’s death, the manor was granted to New College, Oxford. The College retained the manor until the manorial system was effectively abolished in 1922, finally selling the honorary title of Lord of the Manor of Great Horwood to D. Jack Smith in 1997.
New College, Oxford
New College’s archives contain many records relating to the manor, including extraordinarily complete runs of court rolls from 1302 right up to the modern period – their preservation is a credit to the foresight of the College’s founder, William of Wykeham, who made detailed provisions for preservation of property documents in the statutes he gave to the College, and to the dedication of generations of College archivists.
New College’s archives contain many records relating to the manor, including extraordinarily complete runs of court rolls from 1302 right up to the modern period – their preservation is a credit to the foresight of the College’s founder, William of Wykeham, who made detailed provisions for preservation of property documents in the statutes he gave to the College, and to the dedication of generations of College archivists.
A Great Horwood Manorial Court Roll from the Archives of New College, Oxford. (By permission of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford.)
A 12-Year Lease that Lasted 250 Years
It’s worth examining one aspect of the court’s records in detail. On 12th May 1320 the tenants of the manor of Great Horwood, or a large group of them, took a momentous step that would have implications for many centuries to come – they collectively took a lease of the demesne (the lord of the manor’s own land which he kept for his own purposes). The lease comprised all the demesne land, meadows and pasture and all the tenants’ works, but excluded the lord’s woods and local rents and taxes, and was for a term of 12 years. The rent due was 8 marks 9s 4d (i.e. 116s or £5 16s) a year, payable in two halves at the feasts of St James the Apostle and St Martin in Winter (25th July and 11th November). The feast-day of St James the Apostle was to become significant in the next century, and remains so today.
1320 was an unusually early date for a demesne to be leased in this part of England. It is not clear why the Newton Longville sub-priory took this step. As a small cell manned by just one or two monks the priory would have had difficulty consuming the produce of even one demesne and may have found direct exploitation for the open market too burdensome, especially of a demesne as small as that of Great Horwood (just 200 acres). The final trigger for the move to leasing may have been the catastrophic famine and murrains (animal diseases) of the 1310s, which continued into the early 1320s.
Another unusual aspect of the lease was the identity of the lessees. Occasions when tenants collectively took leases of assets as substantial as an entire demesne were rare. There is some uncertainty as to whether the lease was taken by all the tenants, or just a large group of them; nevertheless, Great Horwood’s collective acquisition of the demesne suggests an unusually confident, enterprising and above all united community – their retention of it for nearly three centuries would demonstrate an equally unusual level of cohesion and determination.
It’s worth examining one aspect of the court’s records in detail. On 12th May 1320 the tenants of the manor of Great Horwood, or a large group of them, took a momentous step that would have implications for many centuries to come – they collectively took a lease of the demesne (the lord of the manor’s own land which he kept for his own purposes). The lease comprised all the demesne land, meadows and pasture and all the tenants’ works, but excluded the lord’s woods and local rents and taxes, and was for a term of 12 years. The rent due was 8 marks 9s 4d (i.e. 116s or £5 16s) a year, payable in two halves at the feasts of St James the Apostle and St Martin in Winter (25th July and 11th November). The feast-day of St James the Apostle was to become significant in the next century, and remains so today.
1320 was an unusually early date for a demesne to be leased in this part of England. It is not clear why the Newton Longville sub-priory took this step. As a small cell manned by just one or two monks the priory would have had difficulty consuming the produce of even one demesne and may have found direct exploitation for the open market too burdensome, especially of a demesne as small as that of Great Horwood (just 200 acres). The final trigger for the move to leasing may have been the catastrophic famine and murrains (animal diseases) of the 1310s, which continued into the early 1320s.
Another unusual aspect of the lease was the identity of the lessees. Occasions when tenants collectively took leases of assets as substantial as an entire demesne were rare. There is some uncertainty as to whether the lease was taken by all the tenants, or just a large group of them; nevertheless, Great Horwood’s collective acquisition of the demesne suggests an unusually confident, enterprising and above all united community – their retention of it for nearly three centuries would demonstrate an equally unusual level of cohesion and determination.
Social Structure in 1320
A land assessment dated 3rd May 1320, presumably prepared in connection with the grant of the demesne lease, provides a detailed description of the manor’s social structure and tenanting arrangements, together with some information on its landscape and agriculture. It records a pattern of land ownership that was remarkably equitable, with the largest holdings of farmland being roughly twice the size of the smallest.
Rents were relatively low, mostly 4s to 4s 6d per yardland (a little under 1½d per acre), and the work services were light – just 14 days a year. The description of the demesne suggests an agriculture heavily biased towards grain production in three large common fields, very small areas of meadow and pasture, and the rough pasture in the common waste and the Prior’s Wood. The crops grown on the demesne were much the same as those grown by the tenants: wheat, barley, drage (a barley/oats mix), oats and beans.
The 116s rent required by the demesne lease proved to be remarkably enduring. The manor accounts show that it was unchanged until 1470, and thereafter remained within a few shillings of 116s until the accounts end in 1596, in spite of rises and falls in prices and land values and many renewals of the lease. It may also be a tribute to the Great Horwood tenants’ ability to organise themselves that 200 years later they were still able to collect these rents and pay them on to the lord.
New College Recovers Part of its Land
Though originally granted for only twelve years, the lease continued in existence for two and a half centuries, surviving the confiscation from the priory and the later grant of the manor to New College. It seems finally to have come to an end in the third quarter of the 16th century. From the 1550s until 1611 the court rolls record attempts by the College to identify and recover the demesne lands, and from at least 1574 the College granted leases of the demesne to outsiders, usually fellows of the College, at the original 1320 rent for the arable, meadow and pasture.
New College was not one of the more grasping lords, demanding little more from its tenants than the return of the 200 acres of its demesne – which on a point of law it was perfectly entitled to do. However, its tenants did not appreciate this moderation and forced the College to fight a long battle, lasting sixty years between 1551 and 1611. Such a lengthy period of defiance, not entirely unsuccessful, must be evidence of a strong communal cohesiveness among the Great Horwood tenantry.
The College’s main problem was that the precise location of the demesne lands was unknown, to the College at least, and if the tenants knew, they were not saying. It had been over 200 years since the demesne had first been leased out, and the lordship of the manor had changed hands several times since then (in one case by confiscation, which must have resulted in some disruption of estate records). Although the tenants were ordered to identify their demesne lands they simply denied any knowledge of their whereabouts, insisting that every strip they farmed was part of their ancestral copyhold lands. They may even have believed it – after all, ten or eleven generations had passed since the first lease.
In 1577 the College determined that the six acres of demesne land which it knew to be somewhere in the West Field were fifteen ridges in a furlong called Ladell Hill. The strips were occupied by 11 tenants, whose comments on the lord’s claims were recorded in the court roll, including: ‘John Foscote saith on his oath that the fourth strip in Ladell Hill southward from the Parson’s headland’s end is belonging to his copyhold, and so doth claim it, and so hath occupied it to his knowledge’ and ‘Henry Cooper for the third strip saith that his father hath said, he should have wrong if he should be put out from it’.
The tenants may have clung on to the strips until 1586, when 22 named customary tenants confessed in open (manorial) court that they had no title to parcels of land and that the lord of the manor had the right to dispose of the land as he saw fit.
A land assessment dated 3rd May 1320, presumably prepared in connection with the grant of the demesne lease, provides a detailed description of the manor’s social structure and tenanting arrangements, together with some information on its landscape and agriculture. It records a pattern of land ownership that was remarkably equitable, with the largest holdings of farmland being roughly twice the size of the smallest.
Rents were relatively low, mostly 4s to 4s 6d per yardland (a little under 1½d per acre), and the work services were light – just 14 days a year. The description of the demesne suggests an agriculture heavily biased towards grain production in three large common fields, very small areas of meadow and pasture, and the rough pasture in the common waste and the Prior’s Wood. The crops grown on the demesne were much the same as those grown by the tenants: wheat, barley, drage (a barley/oats mix), oats and beans.
The 116s rent required by the demesne lease proved to be remarkably enduring. The manor accounts show that it was unchanged until 1470, and thereafter remained within a few shillings of 116s until the accounts end in 1596, in spite of rises and falls in prices and land values and many renewals of the lease. It may also be a tribute to the Great Horwood tenants’ ability to organise themselves that 200 years later they were still able to collect these rents and pay them on to the lord.
New College Recovers Part of its Land
Though originally granted for only twelve years, the lease continued in existence for two and a half centuries, surviving the confiscation from the priory and the later grant of the manor to New College. It seems finally to have come to an end in the third quarter of the 16th century. From the 1550s until 1611 the court rolls record attempts by the College to identify and recover the demesne lands, and from at least 1574 the College granted leases of the demesne to outsiders, usually fellows of the College, at the original 1320 rent for the arable, meadow and pasture.
New College was not one of the more grasping lords, demanding little more from its tenants than the return of the 200 acres of its demesne – which on a point of law it was perfectly entitled to do. However, its tenants did not appreciate this moderation and forced the College to fight a long battle, lasting sixty years between 1551 and 1611. Such a lengthy period of defiance, not entirely unsuccessful, must be evidence of a strong communal cohesiveness among the Great Horwood tenantry.
The College’s main problem was that the precise location of the demesne lands was unknown, to the College at least, and if the tenants knew, they were not saying. It had been over 200 years since the demesne had first been leased out, and the lordship of the manor had changed hands several times since then (in one case by confiscation, which must have resulted in some disruption of estate records). Although the tenants were ordered to identify their demesne lands they simply denied any knowledge of their whereabouts, insisting that every strip they farmed was part of their ancestral copyhold lands. They may even have believed it – after all, ten or eleven generations had passed since the first lease.
In 1577 the College determined that the six acres of demesne land which it knew to be somewhere in the West Field were fifteen ridges in a furlong called Ladell Hill. The strips were occupied by 11 tenants, whose comments on the lord’s claims were recorded in the court roll, including: ‘John Foscote saith on his oath that the fourth strip in Ladell Hill southward from the Parson’s headland’s end is belonging to his copyhold, and so doth claim it, and so hath occupied it to his knowledge’ and ‘Henry Cooper for the third strip saith that his father hath said, he should have wrong if he should be put out from it’.
The tenants may have clung on to the strips until 1586, when 22 named customary tenants confessed in open (manorial) court that they had no title to parcels of land and that the lord of the manor had the right to dispose of the land as he saw fit.
The Tenants Keep the Lord’s Land
But even that apparently complete victory did not end the matter. It only dealt with the demesne land in the West and South Fields - about 53 acres, a mere quarter of the total. The biggest parcel, 140 acres, had been in the East Field, and it took another court case, begun in 1609, to settle that. The problem was that at some point in the previous 290 years the tenants had converted most of it into a large communal pasture called Stocking Common (north of today’s Little Horwood Road), to which only they had access.
But even that apparently complete victory did not end the matter. It only dealt with the demesne land in the West and South Fields - about 53 acres, a mere quarter of the total. The biggest parcel, 140 acres, had been in the East Field, and it took another court case, begun in 1609, to settle that. The problem was that at some point in the previous 290 years the tenants had converted most of it into a large communal pasture called Stocking Common (north of today’s Little Horwood Road), to which only they had access.
Part of New College’s Great Horwood estate, 1612. Stocking Common is the coloured portion at the centre of the map together with the enclosure to its right. (By permission of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford.)
To recover Stocking Common the College and Robert Barker, its new lessee of the demesne, took the case to the Court of Chancery, claiming that the tenants had concealed the relevant records, and were all in collusion against them. If true, these allegations demonstrate an impressive unity on the part of the tenants, who showed remarkable cohesiveness and determination by taking on a wealthy Oxford College in two successive cases in the London courts. The cost of fighting them must have been substantial for a rural community of husbandmen and yeomen.
Robert Barker, the demesne lessee who was co-plaintiff in the suit, was a New College graduate whose family were established in the village for several generations and built the manor house (now Manor Farm). His grandson married a cousin of Celia Fiennes, the notable 17th century traveller, who visited the family at Great Horwood at least twice.
The result of the case was a qualified victory for the College. It recovered about half the land in dispute, but 60 acres of Stocking Common remained as a private pasture open only to the customary tenants (the College was given very limited rights of pasture over it).
So there it ended. After nearly three centuries the tenants of Great Horwood were no longer the lessees of the demesne (though in one sense the lease would last another 230 years, as their collective ownership of the 60 acres which remained in Stocking Common would continue until Great Horwood was finally enclosed in 1842). Their communal tenure of the lease during those three centuries demonstrated an impressive collective enterprise.
Social Implications Today
The actions of the tenants of 1320 reverberate today. Great Horwood has never had a resident lord of the manor, and has not developed the stratified social and land-holding structure that many English villages have. It is tempting, although it cannot be proven, to attribute at least part of the reason for this to the fact that the tenants were in control of the demesne and thus that the lordship was less attractive. The authorities at New College, from 1441 until 1609, took a detached view of a manor which had been gifted to them and seem to have cared little, being content to allow the Great Horwood tenants to exploit their advantage, and after 1609 to accept that the tenants had won, at least in part. It is also tempting to see in this long-drawn-out episode another aspect of today’s ‘open village’ having its roots in the decisions of almost 700 years ago.
Robert Barker, the demesne lessee who was co-plaintiff in the suit, was a New College graduate whose family were established in the village for several generations and built the manor house (now Manor Farm). His grandson married a cousin of Celia Fiennes, the notable 17th century traveller, who visited the family at Great Horwood at least twice.
The result of the case was a qualified victory for the College. It recovered about half the land in dispute, but 60 acres of Stocking Common remained as a private pasture open only to the customary tenants (the College was given very limited rights of pasture over it).
So there it ended. After nearly three centuries the tenants of Great Horwood were no longer the lessees of the demesne (though in one sense the lease would last another 230 years, as their collective ownership of the 60 acres which remained in Stocking Common would continue until Great Horwood was finally enclosed in 1842). Their communal tenure of the lease during those three centuries demonstrated an impressive collective enterprise.
Social Implications Today
The actions of the tenants of 1320 reverberate today. Great Horwood has never had a resident lord of the manor, and has not developed the stratified social and land-holding structure that many English villages have. It is tempting, although it cannot be proven, to attribute at least part of the reason for this to the fact that the tenants were in control of the demesne and thus that the lordship was less attractive. The authorities at New College, from 1441 until 1609, took a detached view of a manor which had been gifted to them and seem to have cared little, being content to allow the Great Horwood tenants to exploit their advantage, and after 1609 to accept that the tenants had won, at least in part. It is also tempting to see in this long-drawn-out episode another aspect of today’s ‘open village’ having its roots in the decisions of almost 700 years ago.
The 'Black Death' in Great Horwood
Just over 650 years ago England (and the rest of Europe) was swept by catastrophe. Creeping gradually across the land, bubonic plague and its even deadlier relatives pneumonic plague and septicaemic plague left weed-strewn village streets and farmlands, settlements emptied of living people, bands of wandering orphans, and starving livestock. The Black Death, which raged in 1348 and 1349 and visited communities several more times later in the century, has left an unparalleled folk memory – perhaps not surprising for an epidemic which accounted for a third or more of the country’s entire population.
Rumours of the plague may have spread, but in the days of foot-paced travel news generally travelled no faster than the disease itself. The first that the villagers of Great Horwood may have known of the plague was the shocking sight of infected and dying individuals in their midst. They are unlikely to have connected this with the travellers who had passed through the village a day or two earlier, or with the rats that ran everywhere, or with the rats’ fleas. Yet these were the agents of death.
Just over 650 years ago England (and the rest of Europe) was swept by catastrophe. Creeping gradually across the land, bubonic plague and its even deadlier relatives pneumonic plague and septicaemic plague left weed-strewn village streets and farmlands, settlements emptied of living people, bands of wandering orphans, and starving livestock. The Black Death, which raged in 1348 and 1349 and visited communities several more times later in the century, has left an unparalleled folk memory – perhaps not surprising for an epidemic which accounted for a third or more of the country’s entire population.
Rumours of the plague may have spread, but in the days of foot-paced travel news generally travelled no faster than the disease itself. The first that the villagers of Great Horwood may have known of the plague was the shocking sight of infected and dying individuals in their midst. They are unlikely to have connected this with the travellers who had passed through the village a day or two earlier, or with the rats that ran everywhere, or with the rats’ fleas. Yet these were the agents of death.
The 'Black Death' strikes, this time in 1411.
The plague struck with startling suddenness. A person would notice dark-coloured swellings, large or small (buboes), in the armpit, the groin or the neck, often accompanied by blotchy marks on the skin, and growing rapidly larger and more painful. In a few hours, a few days at most, he or she would probably be dead; sixty to ninety percent of those who caught bubonic plague did not survive. Men and women, old and young, children and adults all succumbed, and no cure was available. Bubonic plague’s variant, pneumonic plague, attacked more violently and rapidly. Infecting the lungs, it was almost invariably fatal within hours. A third and even more sinister variant of the disease, septicaemic plague, may have spread alongside its cousins. The presence of this highly-infectious variant, which promotes such a rapid growth of bacilli that buboes do not have time to form, would account for the widespread tales of people going to bed and never awakening, or collapsing in the street and expiring on the spot.
Like almost every village in England, Great Horwood was visited by the Great Plague (‘Black Death’ is a 19th century name). While the national death toll was between a third and a half the population, there is evidence from the manorial records that in Great Horwood as many as three-quarters of the population died. The reasons for this are probably simple ones such as the weather at the time the plague reached the village (the deadlier pneumonic variant is more likely to develop in hot conditions), since similar large and apparently random variations in fatality levels are known countrywide.
The village may have lost most of its population but what is remarkable is how quickly it bounced back. While villages all over the country remained under-tenanted for decades, with empty and decaying houses, fields left uncultivated and feral (or dead) livestock, the number of households in Great Horwood never dropped by more than 10% during the half-century that followed the first episode of the Great Plague. Although some of this can be accounted for by surviving households taking up newly vacant living space, most of it must have been due to inward migration to the village.
The time of the Great Plague was one when villeins and even serfs were able as never before to cast off their metaphorical shackles and escape from their manorial obligations. Leaving their own villages, perhaps because depopulation had made them less viable or to escape harsh manorial regimes, they sought out settlements where they could find shelter and even land. Great Horwood must have been one of those; its then-recent history of the tenants out-manoeuvring the Lord of the Manor may be an indication that the community was open-minded enough to accept newcomers – and, of course, that the Lord was less powerful (or less assertive) than in some other manors. 14th century Great Horwood prospered while many other villages withered.
Like almost every village in England, Great Horwood was visited by the Great Plague (‘Black Death’ is a 19th century name). While the national death toll was between a third and a half the population, there is evidence from the manorial records that in Great Horwood as many as three-quarters of the population died. The reasons for this are probably simple ones such as the weather at the time the plague reached the village (the deadlier pneumonic variant is more likely to develop in hot conditions), since similar large and apparently random variations in fatality levels are known countrywide.
The village may have lost most of its population but what is remarkable is how quickly it bounced back. While villages all over the country remained under-tenanted for decades, with empty and decaying houses, fields left uncultivated and feral (or dead) livestock, the number of households in Great Horwood never dropped by more than 10% during the half-century that followed the first episode of the Great Plague. Although some of this can be accounted for by surviving households taking up newly vacant living space, most of it must have been due to inward migration to the village.
The time of the Great Plague was one when villeins and even serfs were able as never before to cast off their metaphorical shackles and escape from their manorial obligations. Leaving their own villages, perhaps because depopulation had made them less viable or to escape harsh manorial regimes, they sought out settlements where they could find shelter and even land. Great Horwood must have been one of those; its then-recent history of the tenants out-manoeuvring the Lord of the Manor may be an indication that the community was open-minded enough to accept newcomers – and, of course, that the Lord was less powerful (or less assertive) than in some other manors. 14th century Great Horwood prospered while many other villages withered.
The Open Field System
Today the village of Great Horwood is surrounded by a patchwork of fields, both arable and pasture, intersected by well-defined hard-surfaced roads and divided by hedges and occasional walls. A few clumps of trees stand out, and the streams to the north and south of the village flow freely towards the Great Ouse.
If you had visited the village in the 14th century you would have seen a very different landscape. Instead of relatively small fields you would have found three enormous open areas to the west, south and east of the village with relatively few trees except along the streams, and areas of woodland, scrub and heath to the village’s north. Two of the large open areas would have been under cultivation, with blocks of long parallel ridged strips divided by furrows or grass paths. The third area would have appeared uncultivated, although the strip pattern would still have been obvious, and would have been in use as grazing land for livestock. The streams would have been dammed at least once and small watermills would have been sited on the banks. Beside the two streams was permanent pasture land and hay meadowland, with additional grazing in the headlands of the strips and on the tracks that crossed the open fields. This was the open field system, the standard basis for agriculture in innumerable villages in the English Midlands (of which north Buckinghamshire forms part), and one that was to endure until 1842 in Great Horwood.
Closer in to the village we can today see many traces of the medieval settlement pattern in the long plots, now gardens, leading away from the High Street and Little Horwood Road in particular; further away from the centre of the village we can see the remnants of the parallel strips (‘ridge and furrow’) where these have not been ploughed out. The crofts or closes that ran back behind the houses that lined the village street were also integral parts of the open field system. In contrast, today’s gardens and paddocks are cut off from the surrounding fielded landscape.
Today the village of Great Horwood is surrounded by a patchwork of fields, both arable and pasture, intersected by well-defined hard-surfaced roads and divided by hedges and occasional walls. A few clumps of trees stand out, and the streams to the north and south of the village flow freely towards the Great Ouse.
If you had visited the village in the 14th century you would have seen a very different landscape. Instead of relatively small fields you would have found three enormous open areas to the west, south and east of the village with relatively few trees except along the streams, and areas of woodland, scrub and heath to the village’s north. Two of the large open areas would have been under cultivation, with blocks of long parallel ridged strips divided by furrows or grass paths. The third area would have appeared uncultivated, although the strip pattern would still have been obvious, and would have been in use as grazing land for livestock. The streams would have been dammed at least once and small watermills would have been sited on the banks. Beside the two streams was permanent pasture land and hay meadowland, with additional grazing in the headlands of the strips and on the tracks that crossed the open fields. This was the open field system, the standard basis for agriculture in innumerable villages in the English Midlands (of which north Buckinghamshire forms part), and one that was to endure until 1842 in Great Horwood.
Closer in to the village we can today see many traces of the medieval settlement pattern in the long plots, now gardens, leading away from the High Street and Little Horwood Road in particular; further away from the centre of the village we can see the remnants of the parallel strips (‘ridge and furrow’) where these have not been ploughed out. The crofts or closes that ran back behind the houses that lined the village street were also integral parts of the open field system. In contrast, today’s gardens and paddocks are cut off from the surrounding fielded landscape.
The characteristic long narrow closes show up well on this Estate Map of 1855. (By permission of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford.)
Great Horwood’s three common fields, the East Field, the Middle Field and the West Field, each contained hundreds of the parallel cultivation strips or selions, arranged in blocks called ‘furlongs’. Each strip or land, also known as an acre although the strips did not necessarily correspond to any standard measure as we know it, was the property of (or more commonly let to) an individual. An individual might have rights to many strips (if he was a better-off villein) or to just a few. Usually, the minimum holding was three strips, one in each field, since this enabled cultivation to continue each year despite the rotation system. There were varying standards for the size of a strip but the average strip amounted to about half a statute acre (0.2 hectares).
Of course we do not know precisely which crops were grown when, but it is clear that a three-year rotation system was in operation (some villages ran two-year system or even a four-year system). Each year each common field was sown with similar crops across all of its strips, for example:
Year 1: Winter-sown crops such as wheat and rye;
Year 2: Spring-sown crops, such as barley and oats, and legumes such as peas and beans: although the nitrogen-fixing properties of legumes were not understood until many centuries later, experienced farmers knew the importance of these crops in keeping the land in good heart;
Year 3: Fallow: turned over to grazing animals to allow the land to be both rested and manured before being cultivated again.
The whole of each common field had to be cultivated similarly since the laborious processes of ploughing, sowing and reaping could not easily be carried out at very different times of the year on adjacent strips; this applied particularly to grazing livestock on already-harvested strips, when there was always the likelihood that animals, if uncontrolled, would escape and start trampling down or eating the crops on neighbouring strips. To judge by the number of medieval by-laws this clearly happened frequently. For example, from the Great Horwood court records for 27th July 1337 ‘... no one shall come with his sheep into the sown field before the time of reaping ...’ and ‘... no one shall pasture his beasts in the stubble before it has been reaped to the width of three acres.’
Ploughing was slow and difficult, especially on the heavy soils that are widespread in Great Horwood. In the 14th century plough teams would generally have been of oxen; horse ploughing was becoming commoner but many could not afford this luxury. Four, six or even eight oxen were yoked to a simple wheeled wooden plough (no iron ploughshares then), steered by a ploughman and with the oxen guided by at least one ploughboy. The area of a strip or selion was what could be ploughed in a day. Medieval plough teams could plough between one-third and two-thirds of an acre (0.14 to 0.27 hectares) a day; contrast today’s mechanised ploughs that cover many times this area, using just one person. Thus a medieval ‘acre’ was much less than today’s statute acre. There were many fewer ploughs and teams of oxen than strip-holders, so complex arrangements for exchange of labour, oxen and ploughs were necessary.
Year 1: Winter-sown crops such as wheat and rye;
Year 2: Spring-sown crops, such as barley and oats, and legumes such as peas and beans: although the nitrogen-fixing properties of legumes were not understood until many centuries later, experienced farmers knew the importance of these crops in keeping the land in good heart;
Year 3: Fallow: turned over to grazing animals to allow the land to be both rested and manured before being cultivated again.
The whole of each common field had to be cultivated similarly since the laborious processes of ploughing, sowing and reaping could not easily be carried out at very different times of the year on adjacent strips; this applied particularly to grazing livestock on already-harvested strips, when there was always the likelihood that animals, if uncontrolled, would escape and start trampling down or eating the crops on neighbouring strips. To judge by the number of medieval by-laws this clearly happened frequently. For example, from the Great Horwood court records for 27th July 1337 ‘... no one shall come with his sheep into the sown field before the time of reaping ...’ and ‘... no one shall pasture his beasts in the stubble before it has been reaped to the width of three acres.’
Ploughing was slow and difficult, especially on the heavy soils that are widespread in Great Horwood. In the 14th century plough teams would generally have been of oxen; horse ploughing was becoming commoner but many could not afford this luxury. Four, six or even eight oxen were yoked to a simple wheeled wooden plough (no iron ploughshares then), steered by a ploughman and with the oxen guided by at least one ploughboy. The area of a strip or selion was what could be ploughed in a day. Medieval plough teams could plough between one-third and two-thirds of an acre (0.14 to 0.27 hectares) a day; contrast today’s mechanised ploughs that cover many times this area, using just one person. Thus a medieval ‘acre’ was much less than today’s statute acre. There were many fewer ploughs and teams of oxen than strip-holders, so complex arrangements for exchange of labour, oxen and ploughs were necessary.
Medieval ploughs could only turn the soil over in one direction (conventionally always to the right), as dictated by the shape of the mouldboard, and so the field had to be ploughed in long strips. The plough was usually worked clockwise around each strip or land, ploughing the long sides and being dragged across the short sides without ploughing. The length of the strip was limited by the distance oxen (or later horses) could comfortably work without a rest, and their width by the distance the plough could conveniently be dragged. The one-sided action gradually moved soil from the sides to the centre line of the strip. If the strip was in the same place each year, the soil built up into a ridge, creating the ridge and furrow markings still to be seen in a number of Great Horwood fields.
Sowing, too, was slow and labour-intensive. Grain was sown broadcast and, of course, because of the unreliability of the process and the need to avoid trampling your neighbour’s sprouting crop, had also to be co-ordinated.
Harvest was the busiest time of the farming year. All able-bodied people were needed to reap or to bind, and children and the old and infirm to glean. Reapers cut wheat (much longer in the stalk than today) handful by handful with sickles, and laid the cut bunches on the ground. Binders followed the reapers and gathered up the loose spears into sheaves tied with straw, and the sheaves into shocks or stooks, to dry off. Gleaners were also needed to collect together as many loose ears and kernels as they could find.
Sowing, too, was slow and labour-intensive. Grain was sown broadcast and, of course, because of the unreliability of the process and the need to avoid trampling your neighbour’s sprouting crop, had also to be co-ordinated.
Harvest was the busiest time of the farming year. All able-bodied people were needed to reap or to bind, and children and the old and infirm to glean. Reapers cut wheat (much longer in the stalk than today) handful by handful with sickles, and laid the cut bunches on the ground. Binders followed the reapers and gathered up the loose spears into sheaves tied with straw, and the sheaves into shocks or stooks, to dry off. Gleaners were also needed to collect together as many loose ears and kernels as they could find.
The grain harvest called for a concentrated and co-ordinated effort, since there could often be only a few days between the grain ripening and spoiling. The lord of the manor would call upon everyone who had labour duties to him to reap his lands, taking precedence over their need to reap their own crops. The whole village was obligated to reap, since this was critical. Repeatedly the manorial court issued by-laws to regulate harvests - more than on any other topic. For example, on 29th April 1349 ‘... it is agreed by all the lord’s tenants free and customary that none of them shall go gleaning who is able to earn food and 1d a day under pain of 40d.’ This was an enormous fine - forty days’ earnings.
This need for co-ordination and co-operation created by the open field system influenced the way the community ran itself and its relationship with the manor. The villagers had other obligations; for instance on 23rd July 1433 ‘... and that every tenant be at Nether forde next Monday about Vespers with tools to clean the watercourse under pain of 1d for default ...’.
The manorial court also regulated other aspects of villagers’ lives, declaring on 20th October 1515 that ‘... no tenant or inhabitant ... shall play at dice or cards except in the time of the Lord’s Nativity under pain ... of 20s’ and on 16th October 1534 ‘It is ordered that no one shall harbour or entertain any woman or women of ill fame more than one night under pain for each delinquent of 6s 8d’.
This need for co-ordination and co-operation created by the open field system influenced the way the community ran itself and its relationship with the manor. The villagers had other obligations; for instance on 23rd July 1433 ‘... and that every tenant be at Nether forde next Monday about Vespers with tools to clean the watercourse under pain of 1d for default ...’.
The manorial court also regulated other aspects of villagers’ lives, declaring on 20th October 1515 that ‘... no tenant or inhabitant ... shall play at dice or cards except in the time of the Lord’s Nativity under pain ... of 20s’ and on 16th October 1534 ‘It is ordered that no one shall harbour or entertain any woman or women of ill fame more than one night under pain for each delinquent of 6s 8d’.
The Manorial Court
Although New College recovered control of most of the manor’s land in 1610, the manor gradually began to lose its significance. By the end of the 16th century the business of the manorial court was largely limited to registering land transactions and collecting revenue from them, enforcing agricultural by-laws (and some relating to social control – see above), and dealing with occasional breaches of the peace.
Although New College recovered control of most of the manor’s land in 1610, the manor gradually began to lose its significance. By the end of the 16th century the business of the manorial court was largely limited to registering land transactions and collecting revenue from them, enforcing agricultural by-laws (and some relating to social control – see above), and dealing with occasional breaches of the peace.
In 1727 the records of the Court Baron were still being kept in Latin. (By permission of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford.)
Nevertheless the manorial court continued in existence until 1925. The court preserved its ancient disciplines to the end, operating in its timeless way and using its own special terms. We have an early 20th century account of its proceedings, noting that ‘The Court Baron, or Customary Court of the Warden and Scholars of New College held of and for the Manor of Upper Horwood, in the County of Buckingham is part of the Annual Progress of the College carried out by the Warden with his Outrider (one of the Fellows) and the Manor Steward.’ At that time the Warden was Dr William Spooner, he of the mangled syllables now known as a spoonerism.
The court was opened by the Steward, generally at the Manor House (now Manor Farm) and attended by the principal copyhold tenants known as ‘the Homage’ from whom a jury was selected and sworn in. Although in theory it still had a wide remit, the actual business of the court was almost entirely concerned with property.
The court was opened by the Steward, generally at the Manor House (now Manor Farm) and attended by the principal copyhold tenants known as ‘the Homage’ from whom a jury was selected and sworn in. Although in theory it still had a wide remit, the actual business of the court was almost entirely concerned with property.
By end of the eighteenth century, English was the language of the Court Baron. (By permission of the Warden and Fellows of New College Oxford.)
Market and Fair
In 1447 New College was granted the right to hold a weekly fair on Wednesdays and a three-day fair on the ‘vigil, day and morrow of St James the Apostle’, whose feast-day was 25th July in the old Julian calendar, and the day on which the demesne rent was due under the lease of 1320. From this and the existence of The Green, historians have long assumed that Great Horwood had a market, and was a market town, but that it fell into disuse. Dr Matt Tompkins, who has made an extensive study of Great Horwood’s manorial court rolls, now believes that the market charter was never implemented. He states that ‘over the next century and more neither the manor’s court rolls nor its accounts, which both survive from that period in nearly continuous runs, contain a single reference to a market’.
In 1447 New College was granted the right to hold a weekly fair on Wednesdays and a three-day fair on the ‘vigil, day and morrow of St James the Apostle’, whose feast-day was 25th July in the old Julian calendar, and the day on which the demesne rent was due under the lease of 1320. From this and the existence of The Green, historians have long assumed that Great Horwood had a market, and was a market town, but that it fell into disuse. Dr Matt Tompkins, who has made an extensive study of Great Horwood’s manorial court rolls, now believes that the market charter was never implemented. He states that ‘over the next century and more neither the manor’s court rolls nor its accounts, which both survive from that period in nearly continuous runs, contain a single reference to a market’.
It is not surprising that a lord of a manor should try to promote growth and increase income by obtaining the right to hold a market. However, the existence of a rival market at Winslow, less than two miles away, may have doomed the Great Horwood market to failure.
Certainly, it was a large and populous place; throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries Great Horwood was consistently similar in size to Winslow or larger, and considerably more populous than any of the adjacent villages. It had a number of non-farming tradesmen and artisans, but the court rolls provide no hint of development into a true town. Later, the 1798 Posse Comitatus military census shows that its occupational structure differed hardly at all from that of the other large villages in the area; over 80% of its adult males were farmers, labourers or servants, the rest being tradesmen or artisans of the usual rural sorts (carpenters, butchers, bakers, tailors, etc).
New College tried again in 1667. On 15th April that year the Steward asked the Homage (the leading tenants) if they would renew their charter to hold a market, like another New College manor. After discussion they made it clear that they did not want the market, saying that they were not tradesmen, that there were no houses fit to be inns, that the poor and beggars would descend on the village, and that it would be too expensive. The idea went no further.
The annual fair is still held, and still on the same Julian calendar date (now in August). Now reduced to a funfair on The Green, Great Horwood Feast lasts two days.
Certainly, it was a large and populous place; throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries Great Horwood was consistently similar in size to Winslow or larger, and considerably more populous than any of the adjacent villages. It had a number of non-farming tradesmen and artisans, but the court rolls provide no hint of development into a true town. Later, the 1798 Posse Comitatus military census shows that its occupational structure differed hardly at all from that of the other large villages in the area; over 80% of its adult males were farmers, labourers or servants, the rest being tradesmen or artisans of the usual rural sorts (carpenters, butchers, bakers, tailors, etc).
New College tried again in 1667. On 15th April that year the Steward asked the Homage (the leading tenants) if they would renew their charter to hold a market, like another New College manor. After discussion they made it clear that they did not want the market, saying that they were not tradesmen, that there were no houses fit to be inns, that the poor and beggars would descend on the village, and that it would be too expensive. The idea went no further.
The annual fair is still held, and still on the same Julian calendar date (now in August). Now reduced to a funfair on The Green, Great Horwood Feast lasts two days.
The Great Fire of Great HorwoodLater History of Great Horwood
As mentioned, after the late 16th century New College leased the College’s lands to a succession of gentry. A number of parcels of land also appear to have been sold, although no dominant landowner other than the College ever emerged.
There is little to record for many years after the final episode of the tenants’ fight for Stocking Common. Great Horwood appears to have been largely unaffected by the English Civil War. The next significant event in Great Horwood was the 1781 Great Fire of Great Horwood.
The general English movement towards enclosure, doing away with the ancient open field system of farming, came rather late to Great Horwood. Singleborough, as a separate manor, was enclosed in 1800 under an Act of 1799; Great Horwood’s turn came in 1842 following the 1841 Act of Parliament. There’s more about the events of 1841-42 in Landscape: Farms, Gardens & Allotments.
As mentioned, after the late 16th century New College leased the College’s lands to a succession of gentry. A number of parcels of land also appear to have been sold, although no dominant landowner other than the College ever emerged.
There is little to record for many years after the final episode of the tenants’ fight for Stocking Common. Great Horwood appears to have been largely unaffected by the English Civil War. The next significant event in Great Horwood was the 1781 Great Fire of Great Horwood.
The general English movement towards enclosure, doing away with the ancient open field system of farming, came rather late to Great Horwood. Singleborough, as a separate manor, was enclosed in 1800 under an Act of 1799; Great Horwood’s turn came in 1842 following the 1841 Act of Parliament. There’s more about the events of 1841-42 in Landscape: Farms, Gardens & Allotments.
Sources:
W.O. Ault, Open-Field Farming in Medieval England: A Study of Village By-Laws, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1972.
E.J. Bull, Life and Practices within an Open Field Village: The ‘Midland System’ as Operated in Buckinghamshire, MS, no date.
M. Tompkins, Peasant Society in a Midlands Manor, Great Horwood 1400-1600, PhD thesis, University of Leicester, 2006.
M. Tompkins, ‘Individualism, community and lordship: the peasant demesne lessees of Great Horwood, 1320-1610’, in Richard Goddard, John Langdon and Miriam Muller (eds), Survival and Discord in Medieval Society: Essays in Honour of Christopher Dyer, Brepols, Turnhout (Belgium), 2010.
M. Tompkins, ‘Counting houses: using the housing structure of a late medieval manor to illuminate population, landholding and occupational structure’, in Sam Turner and Bob Silvester (eds), Life in Medieval Landscapes: People and Places in Medieval England, Windgather Press, Oxford, 2011.
P. Ziegler, The Black Death, Collins, London, 1969.
W.O. Ault, Open-Field Farming in Medieval England: A Study of Village By-Laws, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1972.
E.J. Bull, Life and Practices within an Open Field Village: The ‘Midland System’ as Operated in Buckinghamshire, MS, no date.
M. Tompkins, Peasant Society in a Midlands Manor, Great Horwood 1400-1600, PhD thesis, University of Leicester, 2006.
M. Tompkins, ‘Individualism, community and lordship: the peasant demesne lessees of Great Horwood, 1320-1610’, in Richard Goddard, John Langdon and Miriam Muller (eds), Survival and Discord in Medieval Society: Essays in Honour of Christopher Dyer, Brepols, Turnhout (Belgium), 2010.
M. Tompkins, ‘Counting houses: using the housing structure of a late medieval manor to illuminate population, landholding and occupational structure’, in Sam Turner and Bob Silvester (eds), Life in Medieval Landscapes: People and Places in Medieval England, Windgather Press, Oxford, 2011.
P. Ziegler, The Black Death, Collins, London, 1969.
© Rod Moulding, 2012.