70,044
edits
m
add links
Sandralpond (talk | contribs) m (fixed link) |
Sandralpond (talk | contribs) m (add links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''[[England|England]][[Image:Gotoarrow.png]][[England_Land_and_Property|Land and Property]]''[[Image:Highfield Farm, Old Bolingbroke - geograph.org.uk - 869761.jpg|thumb|right|350x250px]] | ''[[England|England]][[Image:Gotoarrow.png]][[England_Land_and_Property|Land and Property]]''[[Image:Highfield Farm, Old Bolingbroke - geograph.org.uk - 869761.jpg|thumb|right|350x250px|Highfield Farm, Old Bolingbroke - geograph.org.uk - 869761.jpg]] | ||
=== Introduction === | === Introduction === | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
The survey is not entirely complete and lacks coverage in the City of London and some other major towns as well as the counties of Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland and Westmorland. Some other counties are incomplete. The many problems of the survey’s interpretation are discussed in David Roffe, ''Domesday: the inquest and the book'' (2000). | The survey is not entirely complete and lacks coverage in the City of London and some other major towns as well as the counties of Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland and Westmorland. Some other counties are incomplete. The many problems of the survey’s interpretation are discussed in David Roffe, ''Domesday: the inquest and the book'' (2000). | ||
The text of Domesday in its abbreviated Latin and a translation were printed in county volumes edited by John Morris as ''Domesday Book'' (38 volumes, Chichester, England: Phillimore, 1975-86) [FHL book 942 R2d]; there are complete indexes of places in volume 36, of persons in volume 37 and subjects in volume 38. An online transcription is available at http://domesdaybook.co.uk. The personal names are indexed in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and David E. Thornton, ''Domesday names: an index of Latin personal and place names in Domesday Book'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1997) [not in FHL] and there is a careful commentary on what is known about the people involved and their subsequent histories in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, ''Domesday people: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066-1166'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1999) [FHL book 942 H2] and''Domesday people: II, Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 2002) [FHL book 942 D3]. | The text of Domesday in its abbreviated Latin and a translation were printed in county volumes edited by John Morris as ''Domesday Book'' (38 volumes, Chichester, England: Phillimore, 1975-86) [{{FHL|13655}} book 942 R2d]; there are complete indexes of places in volume 36, of persons in volume 37 and subjects in volume 38. An online transcription is available at [http://domesdaybook.co.uk Domesday Book]. The personal names are indexed in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and David E. Thornton, ''Domesday names: an index of Latin personal and place names in Domesday Book'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1997) [not in FHL] and there is a careful commentary on what is known about the people involved and their subsequent histories in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, ''Domesday people: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066-1166'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 1999) [FHL book 942 H2] and''Domesday people: II, Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum'' (Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press, 2002) [FHL book 942 D3]. | ||
== Record Indexes and Transcripts 1090-1600 == | == Record Indexes and Transcripts 1090-1600 == | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
The TNA Guide ''[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/land-conveyances-deeds-title.htm ‘Legal Records Information 7’]'' provides links to the many classes of record in The National Archives that contain enrolments of deeds from 1227 to c.1930 and there are other Research Guides in the ''Legal Records Information'' series. | The TNA Guide ''[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/land-conveyances-deeds-title.htm ‘Legal Records Information 7’]'' provides links to the many classes of record in The National Archives that contain enrolments of deeds from 1227 to c.1930 and there are other Research Guides in the ''Legal Records Information'' series. | ||
[http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk Medieval Genealogy] provides most valuable links in its ‘Sources’ section to the many medieval texts (prior to about 1600) that have been published and indexed online. | |||
There are microfilms of many of the printed works and of some of the major manuscript calendars and indexes at The National Library in the Family History Library. Entries in the Family History Library Catalog may be found via the Place Search under ENGLAND – PUBLIC RECORDS, or ENGLAND –TAXATION, or GREAT BRITAIN – PUBLIC RECORDS, or GREAT BRITAIN – PUBLIC RECORDS. | There are microfilms of many of the printed works and of some of the major manuscript calendars and indexes at The National Library in the Family History Library. Entries in the Family History Library Catalog may be found via the Place Search under ENGLAND – PUBLIC RECORDS, or ENGLAND –TAXATION, or GREAT BRITAIN – PUBLIC RECORDS, or GREAT BRITAIN – PUBLIC RECORDS. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
The second collusive action was the Recovery, in which the purchaser (or demandant) brought a case against the vendor (the freeholder or tenant-in-tail) to ‘recover’ the property, claiming that he had been ejected from it by a fictitious third party (given a name such as Hugh Hunt or Richard Rowe). The vendor would call on some other person as a ‘vouchee’ to vouch for his title and when consulted out of court by the purchaser the vouchee would disappear, allowing judgment to be made for the purchaser. The latter would then be given a freehold which effectively dispensed with any remainder or entail which there may have been on the property, indeed the process was often gone through for that purpose alone. The resulting deeds, which are recorded on the Plea and Recovery Rolls, continue to 1834 (CP 40, 43). There are manuscript lists, arranged by date, at The National Archives (see the''‘Legal Records Information 7’ ''guide online mentioned above). | The second collusive action was the Recovery, in which the purchaser (or demandant) brought a case against the vendor (the freeholder or tenant-in-tail) to ‘recover’ the property, claiming that he had been ejected from it by a fictitious third party (given a name such as Hugh Hunt or Richard Rowe). The vendor would call on some other person as a ‘vouchee’ to vouch for his title and when consulted out of court by the purchaser the vouchee would disappear, allowing judgment to be made for the purchaser. The latter would then be given a freehold which effectively dispensed with any remainder or entail which there may have been on the property, indeed the process was often gone through for that purpose alone. The resulting deeds, which are recorded on the Plea and Recovery Rolls, continue to 1834 (CP 40, 43). There are manuscript lists, arranged by date, at The National Archives (see the''‘Legal Records Information 7’ ''guide online mentioned above). | ||
== Statute of | == Statute of Enrollments, 1535 == | ||
In 1535 the Statute of | In 1535 the Statute of Enrollments required that the transfer of freehold land should be by deed and that these deeds be enrolled either in one of the Courts at Westminster, such as Chancery or Kings Bench, or with the Clerk of the Peace of the appropriate county in Quarter Sessions. Town corporations which had their own courts of record were exempted. Title deeds now often took the form of straightforward deeds of bargain and sale. | ||
The obligation to register deeds was not a great success, and as time went by fewer and fewer land transactions were recorded, though the 1535 Act was not repealed until 1924. An Act of Parliament in 1706 described it as ‘of little or no use’. Of the deeds that were registered most were recorded, as mentioned above, in Chancery on the Close Rolls, but there are others in the Exchequer and in the Court of King’s Bench. In many cases there are good lists and indexes of them at The National Archives (see the links provided in the above mentioned online ''‘Legal Records Information 7’''). Those on the Close Rolls, for instance, are clearly written, give the full names of the parties and show the county. The deeds themselves were registered in full. | The obligation to register deeds was not a great success, and as time went by fewer and fewer land transactions were recorded, though the 1535 Act was not repealed until 1924. An Act of Parliament in 1706 described it as ‘of little or no use’. Of the deeds that were registered most were recorded, as mentioned above, in Chancery on the Close Rolls, but there are others in the Exchequer and in the Court of King’s Bench. In many cases there are good lists and indexes of them at The National Archives (see the links provided in the above mentioned online ''‘Legal Records Information 7’''). Those on the Close Rolls, for instance, are clearly written, give the full names of the parties and show the county. The deeds themselves were registered in full. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
== Lease and Release == | == Lease and Release == | ||
The obligation to | The obligation to enrole a deed was to a very large extent circumvented by simply granting a lease for a year on the land you wished to sell and then on the following day giving or ‘conveying’ the lessee the right of future possession (the ‘reversion’) of the land mentioned in the lease. These two documents together were called a ‘lease and release’. This form of conveyance became popular and remained so until 1845, but the lease did not need to be registered and was not enrolled. Any bundle of title deeds dating to before 1845, however, will contain examples. | ||
The seventeenth century lawyers were adept at finding other ways around the requirement to register and although the Statute of Frauds in 1677 required that the transfer of freehold land (‘by enfeoffment’) be evidenced in writing, lack of reliable evidence was often so prevalent that it became difficult to borrow money on the security of land. | The seventeenth century lawyers were adept at finding other ways around the requirement to register and although the Statute of Frauds in 1677 required that the transfer of freehold land (‘by enfeoffment’) be evidenced in writing, lack of reliable evidence was often so prevalent that it became difficult to borrow money on the security of land. | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Because of the scattered nature and uncertain tenure of so many of their holdings small local farmers naturally looked for ways in which to consolidate them and to make them more productive. | Because of the scattered nature and uncertain tenure of so many of their holdings small local farmers naturally looked for ways in which to consolidate them and to make them more productive. | ||
In Tudor England and particularly in the midland counties, the complete amalgamation of farms, often so that they could be more easily converted from arable (for the growing of cereals) to the more profitable pasture (for the rearing and fattening of livestock, both sheep and cattle), became a particular problem. The process, called engrossment, in which the unwanted farm house so often degenerated into a labourer’s cottage, fewer men were employed and their cottages completely decayed, was | In Tudor England and particularly in the midland counties, the complete amalgamation of farms, often so that they could be more easily converted from arable (for the growing of cereals) to the more profitable pasture (for the rearing and fattening of livestock, both sheep and cattle), became a particular problem. The process, called engrossment, in which the unwanted farm house so often degenerated into a labourer’s cottage, fewer men were employed and their cottages completely decayed, was recognized by contemporaries to be a great evil, but attempts to reverse the process met with little success. | ||
== Enclosure == | == Enclosure == | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
The later enclosures, with all the detailed work required, might take several years to complete. Their mark on the landscape is the characteristic square or rectangular field. | The later enclosures, with all the detailed work required, might take several years to complete. Their mark on the landscape is the characteristic square or rectangular field. | ||
The record of the allotment of land called the 'award', with the names of owners and tenants, together with a detailed map, is either in the county record | The record of the allotment of land called the 'award', with the names of owners and tenants, together with a detailed map, is either in the county record office or in The National Archives. All are listed in W.E. Tate's A ''Domesday of English Enclosure Acts and Awards'' (Reading: University of Reading, 1978) {{FHL|61033}} 942 R2 and John Chapman's ''A guide to Parliamentary Enclosures in Wales'' (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1992) {{FHL|1011673}} 942.9 R2. | ||
One of the most controversial aspects of this subject is the way in which enclosure affected the small farmer, cottager and squatter. The liberal social historians J.L. and L.B. Hammond in ''The Village Labourer'' (London: Longmans Green, 1911) [FHL 942 H2] said that it was fatal to these three classes but the great growth in population between 1540 and 1640 (when it all but doubled) undoubtedly also helped to create the mobile labour force dependent on wages, which is usually blamed upon it. Where common survive, smallholdings have not necessarily flourished, but you may still see cattle graze an unenclosed heath, watched perhaps by their owner from the glassy shelter of a telephone kiosk. | One of the most controversial aspects of this subject is the way in which enclosure affected the small farmer, cottager and squatter. The liberal social historians J.L. and L.B. Hammond in ''The Village Labourer'' (London: Longmans Green, 1911) [FHL 942 H2] said that it was fatal to these three classes but the great growth in population between 1540 and 1640 (when it all but doubled) undoubtedly also helped to create the mobile labour force dependent on wages, which is usually blamed upon it. Where common survive, smallholdings have not necessarily flourished, but you may still see cattle graze an unenclosed heath, watched perhaps by their owner from the glassy shelter of a telephone kiosk. | ||