A History of Lancashire. Fishwick Henry

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and two neat–herds. Part of the hundred was waste. Edward also had in this hundred Penwortham (Peneverdant), where for two carucates of land 10d. was paid, and it is briefly recorded that there was a castle there (see p. 47).

      In Salford Hundred the manor of Salford belonged to Edward, and in his time it consisted of three hides and twelve carucates of waste land, a forest over 4 miles long and the same breadth; the Confessor also owned at Radcliffe a manor containing one hide of land. To Salford Hundred belonged twenty–one berewicks, which were held as manors by as many Thanes, whose land was put down as eleven and a half hides and ten and a half carucates; the woods were said to be over 12 miles in length. The only thane named is Gamel, who held Rochdale (see p. 47). Two churches are mentioned, St. Mary’s and St. Michael’s, both as holding land in Mamecestre, this being the only mention of this great city of the North. The whole of the hundred paid £37 4s.

      Certain land of this hundred had been given by Roger de Poictou to the following knights: Nigel, Warin, another Warin, Goisfrid and Gamel.63 Living on these lands were three thanes, thirty villeins, nine bordarii, one priest, and ten serfs.

      In the six hundreds of Derby, Newton, Warrington, Blackburn, Salford, and Leyland there were 180 manors, in which were 79 hides rateable to the danegeld. In King Edward’s time the whole was worth £145 2s. 2d. At the taking of the Survey it was held by William the Conqueror, and he appears to have granted certain lands in fee to nine knights.

      Amounderness had also been part of the estate of Roger de Poictou, and had been held by Earl Tosti, who at Preston had six carucates of land rateable to the geld, along with which he had the following vills in the hundred: Ashton, Lea, Salwick, Clifton, Newton–with–Seales, Freckleton, Ribby–with–Wray, Kirkham, Treales, Westby, Little Plumpton, Weeton, Preise, Warton, Lytham, Marton (in Poulton), Layton–with–Warbrick, Staining, Carleton, Bispham, Rossall, Brining, Thornton, Poulton in the Fylde, Singleton, Greenhalgh, Eccleston, Eccleston (Great and Little), Elswick, Inskip, Sowerby, Nateby, St. Michael’s–le–Wyre (Michelscherche), Catterall, Claughton, Newsham, Great Plumpton, Broughton, Whittingham, Barton (in Preston), Goosnargh, Haighton, Wheatley, Chipping, Alston, Fishwick, Grimsargh, Ribchester, Billsborough, Swainsett, Forton, Chrimbles, Garstang, Rawcliffe (Upper, Middle, and Out), Hambleton, Stalmine, Preesall, Mythorp or Mythop.

      There were, then, in this hundred sixty–two vills or manors, in sixteen of which the Survey reports there were “but few inhabitants, but how many there are is unknown,” and the rest were waste. There were three churches then in existence; the names of these are not given, but they undoubtedly were Preston, St. Michael’s, and Kirkham. Other churches there probably had been, but they had shared in the general ruin (see Chapter V.).

      The names of places thus supplied give some clue to the early history of the district. Out of sixty–two vills, over one–third are “tons”; there are also found the Anglo–Saxon and the Danish equivalent in the “bys” and “hams.” But the most significant fact recorded by the Survey is that out of sixty–two settlements all except sixteen were deserted and the land lying waste; this must be accounted for by the ravages of constant intestine wars and revolutions, which were accentuated by the downfall of Roger de Poictou.

      The Lancashire part of Lonsdale is not in the Survey found alone, but is mixed up with portions of Westmorland, Cumberland, and Yorkshire; the same proprietors appear as in Amounderness, Roger de Poictou and the Earl Tosti. The places named are Halton, Aldcliff, Thornham, Millham, Lancaster, Church Lancaster (Chercaloncastre), Hutton, Newton, Overton, Middleton, Heaton, Heysham, Oxcliffe, Poulton–le–Sands, Torrisholme, Skerton, Bare, Slyne, Bolton, Kellet, Stapleton–Terne, Newsome, Carnforth – all these vills belonged to Halton; Whittington, Newton, Arkholme, Gressingham, Cantsfield, Ireby, Barrow Leek – these and several others not in Lancashire belonged to Whittington; Warton, Claughton, Wennington, Tatham, Farleton, and Tunstall,64 Killerwick, Huncoat, Sowerby, Heaton, Dalton, Swarth, Newton, Walton, Leece, Santon, Roose, Hert, Glaston, Stainton, Cliverton, Orgreave,65 Marton (or Martin), Pennington, Kirkby–Ireleth, Burrow, Bardsey, Willingham, Walney, Aldingham (in Furness), Ulverston, Ashton, and Urswick; Melling, Hornby, and Wennington, Cockerham, Ellet, Scotforth, Yealand–Conyers, and Berwick.

      It would be interesting to know how much land in the entire county was at this time under some kind of cultivation, but owing to uncertainty as to the exact area included by several of the measurements given in the Survey, and the absence of details, any calculation based upon them would at best be uncertain, and might be misleading. With some of the parishes, however, it is possible to come at something more reliable; in the parish of St. Michael’s–on–Wyre, Domesday gives twenty carucates of land as rateable, the rest being waste; estimating a carucate66 at 100 acres, we have 2,000 acres accounted for out of an area of 18,888 acres; upon the same basis, Kirkham, with 31,000 acres, had a little over 5,000 acres under culture; whilst Garstang, out of 28,881, has only 1,400 acres.67

      The amount of land usually held with these vills varied from two or three hides to half a carucate, the general figure being one or two carucates, so that it is quite clear that all over the county the great bulk of the land was waste.

      One of the immediate effects of the completion of the Conquest was the introduction into England of Norman feudalism. By this system the whole country (except what was given to the Church) was handed over to tenants in chief or great vassals, who held their lands in fee and in perpetuity direct from the Crown, in return rendering what was known as knight’s service, every estate of £20 a year being considered a knight’s fee, and liable to furnish for the King one mounted soldier; the vassals or under–tenants of these barons, or tenants in capite, were bound by an oath of allegiance not only to the King, but also to the owner of the fee. These sub–tenants would in many cases consist of such of the Saxon settlers as had not been expelled by the Norman ruler; doubtless many of the great Saxon Thanes on losing their land were expelled from or of their own will left the country. A detailed account of the various changes in the ownership of the soil would here be out of place, but it should be noticed that all the land in private holdings shortly after the Conquest passed into fresh hands – that is, as far as regards the tenure in fee direct from the Crown. After the final defection and consequent banishment of Roger de Poictou in 2 Henry I. (1101–2), West Derby Hundred went to the King, and remained in royal hands until Stephen granted it to Henry, Duke of Normandy; Leyland passed to King John (1199–1200); Blackburn had been bestowed by the Conqueror on Ilbert de Lacy, who came over with him from Normandy; Salford passed through several hands to the Earl of Chester; Amounderness went to the Crown, and was by Henry I. or Stephen presented to Theobald Walter, son of Herveus, another Norman chief, but in 17 John (1215–16) it again fell to the Crown, and was granted to Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster; and in Lonsdale we find that in 1126 Stephen, Earl of Bologne (before he became King), made over a large portion of the northern part to the monks of Furness, but the history of the early grantees of this district is not very clear. From these few chief lords were granted out various manors subject to rent, suit, and service, some portions in each district being retained in the King’s possession.

      In the case of the transfer of the honour of Lancaster to Edmund Crouchback, it appears that the King had previously granted the custody of the county of Lancaster to Roger de Lancaster, to whom, therefore, letters patent were addressed, promising to indemnify him.68

      The close of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century witnessed a considerable increase in the population of the county, and the consequent advance in the importance of its now growing towns. Lancaster in 1199 had become a borough, having granted to it the same liberties as the burgesses of Northampton. СКАЧАТЬ