Urban common rights, enclosure and the market: Clitheroe Town Moors, 1764-1802

Agricultural History Review

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 40-68

  French, H R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342533136     PISSN: 00021490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (153)

1. L. Shaw-Taylor, 'Labourers, cows, common rights and parliamentary enclosure: the evidence of contemporary comment, c. 1760-1810', Past and Present 171 (2001), pp. 95-126; id., 'Parliamentary enclosure and the emergence of an English agricultural proletariat', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 640-62; J. Chapman and S. Seeliger, Enclosure, environment and landscape in southern England (2001); their line is supported by G. Clark and A. Clark, 'Common rights to land in England, 1475-1839', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 1009-36, although they dispute Chapman's claims that significant amounts of private, non-Parliamentary enclosure occurred.
2. L. Shaw-Taylor, 'Labourers, cows, common rights and parliamentary enclosure: the evidence of contemporary comment, c. 1760-1810', Past and Present 171 (2001), pp. 95-126; id., 'Parliamentary enclosure and the emergence of an English agricultural proletariat', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 640-62; J. Chapman and S. Seeliger, Enclosure, environment and landscape in southern England (2001); their line is supported by G. Clark and A. Clark, 'Common rights to land in England, 1475-1839', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 1009-36, although they dispute Chapman's claims that significant amounts of private, non-Parliamentary enclosure occurred.
3. L. Shaw-Taylor, 'Labourers, cows, common rights and parliamentary enclosure: the evidence of contemporary comment, c. 1760-1810', Past and Present 171 (2001), pp. 95-126; id., 'Parliamentary enclosure and the emergence of an English agricultural proletariat', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 640-62; J. Chapman and S. Seeliger, Enclosure, environment and landscape in southern England (2001); their line is supported by G. Clark and A. Clark, 'Common rights to land in England, 1475-1839', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 1009-36, although they dispute Chapman's claims that significant amounts of private, non-Parliamentary enclosure occurred.
4. L. Shaw-Taylor, 'Labourers, cows, common rights and parliamentary enclosure: the evidence of contemporary comment, c. 1760-1810', Past and Present 171 (2001), pp. 95-126; id., 'Parliamentary enclosure and the emergence of an English agricultural proletariat', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 640-62; J. Chapman and S. Seeliger, Enclosure, environment and landscape in southern England (2001); their line is supported by G. Clark and A. Clark, 'Common rights to land in England, 1475-1839', JEcH 61 (2001), pp. 1009-36, although they dispute Chapman's claims that significant amounts of private, non-Parliamentary enclosure occurred.
5. Shaw-Taylor, 'Agricultural proletariat', p. 654.
6. Chapman and Seeliger, Enclosure, environment and landscape, pp. 27, 52-3, 71-2, 93, 137.
7. Shaw-Taylor, 'Agricultural proletariat', p. 659.
8. Clark and Clark, 'Common rights', p. 1033.
9. In contrast to Clark and Clark, Chapman and Seeliger argue that poor labourers and cottagers were disadvantaged most (numerically and financially) by the enclosure of wastes and moors, and the extinction of squatters' rights. Enclosure, environment and landscape, p. 27.
10. See H. R. French, 'Urban agriculture, commons and commoners in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the case of Sudbury, Suffolk', AgHR 48 (2000), p. 173.
11. J. M. Neeson, Commoners: common right, enclosure and social change in England, 1700-1820 (1993), pp. 55-81.
12. See, for example, the regulation of the town lands of Calne, Wilts., 1657, in R. C. Richardson and T. B. James (eds), The Urban Experience: a sourcebook. English, Scottish and Welsh Towns, 1450-1700 (1983), pp. 54-5.
13. Restrictions were imposed in Northampton in 1556, Victoria County History (hereafter VCH) Northamptonshire, III, p. 22; in Marlborough burgesses only were allowed to cultivate the open arable fields, but all inhabitants could depasture livestock after harvest, VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207; in Oxford, common rights belonged exclusively to freemen, but stinting was abandoned about 1680, VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280; in Tewkesbury in the seventeenth century burgesses enjoyed exclusive access to one common field, and rights to depasture double the numbers of animals in the other fields compared to the freemen, VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138.
14. Restrictions were imposed in Northampton in 1556, Victoria County History (hereafter VCH) Northamptonshire, III, p. 22; in Marlborough burgesses only were allowed to cultivate the open arable fields, but all inhabitants could depasture livestock after harvest, VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207; in Oxford, common rights belonged exclusively to freemen, but stinting was abandoned about 1680, VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280; in Tewkesbury in the seventeenth century burgesses enjoyed exclusive access to one common field, and rights to depasture double the numbers of animals in the other fields compared to the freemen, VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138.
15. Restrictions were imposed in Northampton in 1556, Victoria County History (hereafter VCH) Northamptonshire, III, p. 22; in Marlborough burgesses only were allowed to cultivate the open arable fields, but all inhabitants could depasture livestock after harvest, VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207; in Oxford, common rights belonged exclusively to freemen, but stinting was abandoned about 1680, VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280; in Tewkesbury in the seventeenth century burgesses enjoyed exclusive access to one common field, and rights to depasture double the numbers of animals in the other fields compared to the freemen, VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138.
16. Restrictions were imposed in Northampton in 1556, Victoria County History (hereafter VCH) Northamptonshire, III, p. 22; in Marlborough burgesses only were allowed to cultivate the open arable fields, but all inhabitants could depasture livestock after harvest, VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207; in Oxford, common rights belonged exclusively to freemen, but stinting was abandoned about 1680, VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280; in Tewkesbury in the seventeenth century burgesses enjoyed exclusive access to one common field, and rights to depasture double the numbers of animals in the other fields compared to the freemen, VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138.
17. I have suggested that in Sudbury, Suffolk, only about 33% of freemen actually exercised common rights. French, 'Urban agriculture', pp. 182-3.
18. Reports from the Commissioners on the Municipal Corporations in England and Wales (1835) (hereafter Reports on Municipal Corporations), App. I, pp. 85 (Marlborough), 447 (Bodmin), 559 (Okehampton); II, pp. 673 (Arundel); III, pp. 1610 (Lancaster); IV, pp. 2034 (Sutton Coldfield), 2193 (Beccles), 2190 (Cambridge), 2358 (Lincoln) and 2627 (Chester).
19. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
20. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
21. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-Upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
22. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-Upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
23. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-Upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
24. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-Upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
25. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
26. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
27. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
28. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
29. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
30. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
31. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
32. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
33. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
34. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
35. J. D. Chambers, 'Population change in Nottingham, 1700-1800' in L. S. Presnell (ed.), Studies in the Industrial Revolution (1960), p. 99; W. G. Hoskins, 'An Elizabethan provincial town: Leicester', in id., Provincial England. Essays in social and economic history (1964), p. 89; VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199 (Coventry); A. D. Dyer, The city of Worcester in the sixteenth century (1973), p. 135; VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 22 (Northampton); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, pp. 2110 (Bedford), 2289 (Huntingdon); VCH Wiltshire, XII, p. 207 (Marlborough); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 78 (Malmesbury); II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280 (Oxford); VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138 (Tewkesbury); Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1850 (Derby), 2014 (Shrewsbury), 2028 (Stafford); Berwick-upon-Tweed, S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (5 vols., 1906-22), II, p. 518; Gateshead, Reports on Municipal Corporations, III, pp. 1526 (Gateshead), 1628 (Morpeth); Newcastle, E. M. Halcrow, 'The Town Moor of Newcastle Upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), pp. 149-64; VCH The City of York, p. 499; Bath, Durham, Gloucester, Marlborough, Preston and Wigan, evidence from British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), LV (1870), Return of all boroughs and cities in the United Kingdom possessing common or other lands, in respect of which the freemen or other privileged inhabitants claim any exclusive right of property or use ...', pp. 3-31 .
36. This distinction in rights was drawn in Berwick-upon-Tweed, Reports on Municipal Corporations, App. III, pp. 1443, 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1515 (Durham), 1526 (Gateshead), 1647 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), 1745 (York), 1993 (Nottingham); IV, p. 2110 (Bedford), 2539 (Stamford).
37. This distinction in rights was drawn in Berwick-upon-Tweed, Reports on Municipal Corporations, App. III, pp. 1443, 1459 (Beverley), 1500 (Doncaster), 1515 (Durham), 1526 (Gateshead), 1647 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), 1745 (York), 1993 (Nottingham); IV, p. 2110 (Bedford), 2539 (Stamford).
38. French, 'Urban Agriculture', p. 180. Senior corporation members enjoyed larger stints in Arundel, Tewkesbury and Oxford (until c. 1600). VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280.
39. French, 'Urban Agriculture', p. 180. Senior corporation members enjoyed larger stints in Arundel, Tewkesbury and Oxford (until c. 1600). VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280.
40. French, 'Urban Agriculture', p. 180. Senior corporation members enjoyed larger stints in Arundel, Tewkesbury and Oxford (until c. 1600). VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280.
41. French, 'Urban Agriculture', p. 180. Senior corporation members enjoyed larger stints in Arundel, Tewkesbury and Oxford (until c. 1600). VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Oxfordshire, IV, p. 280.
42. VCH Hertfordshire, III, p. 498; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1106 (Basingstoke); III, p. 1745 (York); IV, pp. 2236 (Godmanchester), 2652 (Congleton).
43. VCH Hertfordshire, III, p. 498; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1106 (Basingstoke); III, p. 1745 (York); IV, pp. 2236 (Godmanchester), 2652 (Congleton).
44. VCH Hertfordshire, III, p. 498; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1106 (Basingstoke); III, p. 1745 (York); IV, pp. 2236 (Godmanchester), 2652 (Congleton).
45. VCH Hertfordshire, III, p. 498; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1106 (Basingstoke); III, p. 1745 (York); IV, pp. 2236 (Godmanchester), 2652 (Congleton).
46. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
47. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
48. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
49. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
50. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
51. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
52. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
53. Subletting of common rights by burgesses was probably endemic in towns even before the sixteenth century, being mentioned in Nottingham, Tewkesbury, Arundel and Calne, allowed in Doncaster and Chippenham but forbidden in Coventry. R. M. Butler, 'The common lands of the borough of Nottingham', Proc. Thoroton Soc., 54 (1950), p. 55; Chambers, 'Population change', pp. 101-2; VCH Gloucestershire, VIII, p. 138; VCH Sussex, IV, p. 58; Richardson and James (eds), Urban Experience, p. 55; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, p. 1248 (Chippenham); III, p. 1500 (Doncaster); VCH Warwickshire, VIII, p. 199.
54. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
55. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
56. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
57. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
58. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
59. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
60. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
61. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
62. Richardson and James (eds.), Urban Experience, pp. 54-5 (Calne); Reports on Municipal Corporations, I, p. 85 (Marlborough); VCH Essex, XI, p. 255 (Colchester); VCH East Riding, VI, p. 214; VCH Staffordshire, XIV, pp. 110-4 (Lichfield); Reports on Municipal Corporations, IV, p. 2358 (Lincoln); The Common Lands of Cambridgeshire (Cambridge County Planning Department Survey Reports, 1956), pp. 16-17; A. Temple Patterson, A History of Southampton 1700-2914 (3 vols, 1966-75), I, p. 11; L. Ellis Tavener, The Common Lands of Hampshire (1957), pp. 52-3. 55-8.
63. The most detailed case studies are: G. Rogers, 'Custom and common right: waste land enclosure and social change in west Lancashire', AgHR 41 (1993), pp. 137-54; J. F. Broadbent, 'Dewsbury Inclosure, 1796-1806', Yorkshire Arch. J. 69 (1997), pp. 209-26; G. Scurfield, 'Seventeenth-century Sheffield and its environs', Yorkshire Arch. J. 58 (1986), pp. 147-71 and the general survey by G. Elliott, 'Field systems of northwest England', in A. R. H. Baker and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles (1973), pp. 41-92.
64. The most detailed case studies are: G. Rogers, 'Custom and common right: waste land enclosure and social change in west Lancashire', AgHR 41 (1993), pp. 137-54; J. F. Broadbent, 'Dewsbury Inclosure, 1796-1806', Yorkshire Arch. J. 69 (1997), pp. 209-26; G. Scurfield, 'Seventeenth-century Sheffield and its environs', Yorkshire Arch. J. 58 (1986), pp. 147-71 and the general survey by G. Elliott, 'Field systems of northwest England', in A. R. H. Baker and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles (1973), pp. 41-92.
65. The most detailed case studies are: G. Rogers, 'Custom and common right: waste land enclosure and social change in west Lancashire', AgHR 41 (1993), pp. 137-54; J. F. Broadbent, 'Dewsbury Inclosure, 1796-1806', Yorkshire Arch. J. 69 (1997), pp. 209-26; G. Scurfield, 'Seventeenth-century Sheffield and its environs', Yorkshire Arch. J. 58 (1986), pp. 147-71 and the general survey by G. Elliott, 'Field systems of northwest England', in A. R. H. Baker and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles (1973), pp. 41-92.
66. The most detailed case studies are: G. Rogers, 'Custom and common right: waste land enclosure and social change in west Lancashire', AgHR 41 (1993), pp. 137-54; J. F. Broadbent, 'Dewsbury Inclosure, 1796-1806', Yorkshire Arch. J. 69 (1997), pp. 209-26; G. Scurfield, 'Seventeenth-century Sheffield and its environs', Yorkshire Arch. J. 58 (1986), pp. 147-71 and the general survey by G. Elliott, 'Field systems of northwest England', in A. R. H. Baker and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles (1973), pp. 41-92.
67. Elliott, 'Field systems', p. 54.
68. Lancashire RO, MBC 650.
69. Lincolnshire RO, Brownlow Estate (hereafter BNL), Box 'Clitheroe (C.J.s)', 'Mr G's observations on the estate of Lord R[ibblesdale] within this Borough, for the purchase whereof Lord B[rownlow] is in treaty', 19 June 1801.
70. The four fairs were 7-9 December, 24-26 March, 2 August and early October. T. D. Whitaker, An history of the original parish of Whalley and Honor of Clitheroe ... (4th ed., 1876), p. 77.
71. Two purpose-built yarn-spinning 'manufactories' were built in the town in the late 17805, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds (hereafter YAS), MD 335/81, Henry Waddington to Thomas Lister, 3 Mar. 1787 and below, p. 66. In 1778, it was reported that 500-1000 loads of lime per day were transported through the town. The trial at large of Nicholas Wilkinson, Doctor Herd and Henry Worswick ... 3 April 1778 (6th edn, Lancaster, 1830), p. 23.
72. Lancs. RO, MBCi, Clitheroe enclosure award, 28 Nov. 1788. George Lang, land surveyor of Leyland testified in 1784 that customary measure in Clitheroe was 7 yards to the perch, while statute units were 5/2 yards to the perch (a ratio of 1.27:1), Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'Curzon & Lister BQ 23' (Chancery suit, Assheton Curzon & Penn Assheton Curzon v. Thomas Lister 15 Mar. 1784). In practice in eighteenth-century Clitheroe sources customary acreages were translated into statute in a variety of ratios. For the sake of clarity and consistency, customary acreages will be cited hereafter.
73. Acreages calculated from Lancs. RO, MBC 1.
74. The crown's holding was the subject of a number of court cases after the Interregnum to determine whether it was crown land or the demesne of a messuage called The Alleys. See, for instance, PRO, E 134/22 Chas. 2/Mich. 26, 22 & 23/Chas. 2/Hil. 17.
75. Lancs. RO, DDHCl, map 18 (Clitheroe Survey 1781). Although Horrocksford possessed no common rights, the seventeenth-century owners, the Andertons of Lostock, were charged with providing a bull for the commons. This appears to have been in return for lands granted to them out of the commons. W. Self Weeks, Clitheroe in the seventeenth century (1927), p. 35.
76. This must have been before the sixteenth century, however, because from at least the 1542 Horrocksford was leased by the Talbot family to Giles Parker of Eddisford. A charter of 1307 mentioned the 'manor of Salthill'. VCH Lancashire, VI, pp. 364-5, 366.
77. Lancs. RO, MBC 27-33 (covering the years 1764, 1766, 1769, 1770, 1773, 1775, 1776 and 1777), and DDX 28/9 (1779).
78. In 1766, 1770, 1773, 1776 and 1777.
79. Self Weeks, Clitheroe, pp. 25, 27 citing courts of inquiry of 1642 and 1696.
80. Ownership and tenancy on these properties has been established by identifying ownership of the 78 'free borough houses' in Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state of the Borough of Clitheroe, 1782, corrected and enlarged by the same hand, 1785', a listing of the ownership history of the 102 burgages in the borough; the remaining 49 properties have been identified on Lancs. RO, DDX 1464/1, survey and valuation of Clitheroe, 1797 (which gives owner and tenant), and correlated with overseers' assessments for 1785 and 1789, Lancs. RO, MBC 634, 730 and DDHCl, box 120, survey of joint Clitheroe estate of Thomas Lister and Assheton Curzon, 1783.
81. In 1764 eleven out of 126 burgages entered in the Marking Book had no numbers of horses or beasts recorded for them, or any note of rights assigned to third parties. This may simply be due to defective recording. There are no more than 5 burgages where no animal numbers or assignments were recorded in 1770, 1773 and 1779.
82. The properties where these acreage assignments took place were among those 49 unenfranchised plots, where common rights were based on one horsegate and one beastgate for every four acres.
83. Only in 1773 and 1779 did the proportion of burgages in these two excluded groups reach 15 per cent. The lowest proportion was 11 per cent, in 1769.
84. Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782', fo. 1.
85. Self Weeks, Clitheroe, p. 24.
86. Lancs. RO, MBC 364, Clitheroe borough court of inquiry verdict, 9 Feb. 1665; this was repeated in another verdict on 16 Apr. 1680, MBC 366.
87. Pricing stints of cows above those of horses contrasted to the differentials in pricing in most boroughs. By 1835 horses cost more to depasture per head than cows in a number of towns; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, pp. 1106 (Basingstoke), 1248 (Chippenham); III, pp. 1745 (York), 1972 (Northampton), 2001 (Nottingham), 2034 (Sutton Coldfield); IV, pp. 2230 (Dunwich), 2289 (Huntingdon).
88. Pricing stints of cows above those of horses contrasted to the differentials in pricing in most boroughs. By 1835 horses cost more to depasture per head than cows in a number of towns; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, pp. 1106 (Basingstoke), 1248 (Chippenham); III, pp. 1745 (York), 1972 (Northampton), 2001 (Nottingham), 2034 (Sutton Coldfield); IV, pp. 2230 (Dunwich), 2289 (Huntingdon).
89. Pricing stints of cows above those of horses contrasted to the differentials in pricing in most boroughs. By 1835 horses cost more to depasture per head than cows in a number of towns; Reports on Municipal Corporations, II, pp. 1106 (Basingstoke), 1248 (Chippenham); III, pp. 1745 (York), 1972 (Northampton), 2001 (Nottingham), 2034 (Sutton Coldfield); IV, pp. 2230 (Dunwich), 2289 (Huntingdon).
90. Lincs. RO, BNL,'BNL Subs (BQ23)' (Chancery suit, Assheton & Penn Assheton Curzon v. Thomas Lister), deposition of James Standen, Poulton, Lancs., land surveyor, 15 Mar. 1784. Standen believed his estimates were accurate at the time he gave evidence, but would only remain so for a further 5-10 years if the lands remained unenclosed.
91. Between 1764 and 1779 the distribution of entitlements was as follows. Between 11% and 15% of properties were recorded as exercising no entitlement in any of the years; between 7% and 16% exercised less than one horse and one beastgate; between 41% and 51% exercised one horse and one beastgate; between 22% and 32% used more than one horse and one beastgate. Lancs. RO, MBC 27-33 and DDX 28/9.
92. French, 'Urban agriculture', p. 180. In Sudbury, Suffolk, commoners gained access to the commons after paying less than one-third of the market value of the lands, although gross over-stocking seriously diminished the actual value of these lands.
93. Self Weeks, Clitheroe, pp. 25-8.
94. Trials at Large, p. 3. The fair on the 24 March was known as the 'Feast-Fair', the next, the 'Head-Fair', where cattle were bought and sold.
95. The Listers of Gisburn Park lived within five miles of Clitheroe, and had long exerted influence in the borough as minor gentry. The Curzons were based at Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire, and their lead mines gave them greater wealth and prominence than the Listers. In 1716 Thomas Lister (1688-1745) and Nathaniel Curzon (1676?-1758) married the daughters and co-heirs of Sir Ralph Assheton of Whalley, acquiring Assheton's Clitheroe burgages, and forming an electoral alliance that continued until broken by Thomas Lister (1752-1826, cr. Lord Ribblesdale, 1797) in 1780. R. Sedgwick (ed.), The House of Commons, 1715-1754 (2 vols, 1970), II, pp. 219, 599.
96. In 1764, the Lister family owned 17 properties out-right, the Curzons 3, and the two families had joint tenure of 36. In 1779, the Listers owned 19, the Curzons 3, and 44 were held jointly. By 1786, after rapid accumulation of burgages because of electoral rivalry between the two families, and the subsequent division of their joint estate, the Listers owned 58 properties, the Curzons 31, and there were still 6 owned jointly, mainly under a lease of Whalley Glebe.
97. Calculated by cross-referencing commonable lands in the 1779 marking book (Lancs. RO, DDX 28/9) with 1785 overseers' assessment (MBC 634) to create a listing of tenants for these properties in 1785, with their poor rate assessments. Owners identified from Lincs. RO, BNL, Box 'Clitheroe Est. BNL (Lister & Curzon etc.)' 'Names of Persons interested in Commons and Wastes' (immediately prior to enclosure agreement, 1786).
98. The two were John Parker, an attorney, shortly to invest in one of the first cotton spinning mills in the town, and Colonel Rigby, an army officer who had married the daughter of Richard Sclater, Assheton Curzon's estate steward. Sir Lewis Namier and J. Brooke (eds.), The House of Commons 1754-1790 (3 vols, 1964), II, p. 250; Lancs. RO, DDX 54/104.
99. The mean number of horses and cattle depastured per year between 1764 and 1779 was 254, depastured on commons and wastes totalling 427 statute acres, allowing o.6 animals per acre, or 1.68 acres per animal. This stocking rate may have been too dense to be sustained for the whole of the period for which the commons were open.
100. Sudbury ratios calculated from Table 2 in French, 'Urban agriculture', p. 186.
101. VCH East Riding, VI, p. 215; in Northampton there were 280 horses and 103 cows depastured in 1693, and 233 horses and 221 cows in 1698, VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 23; in York in 1846 (after enclosure of larger outlying pasture commons), 484 cows and 201 horses and mares were depastured, VCH The City of York, p. 505.
102. VCH East Riding, VI, p. 215; in Northampton there were 280 horses and 103 cows depastured in 1693, and 233 horses and 221 cows in 1698, VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 23; in York in 1846 (after enclosure of larger outlying pasture commons), 484 cows and 201 horses and mares were depastured, VCH The City of York, p. 505.
103. VCH East Riding, VI, p. 215; in Northampton there were 280 horses and 103 cows depastured in 1693, and 233 horses and 221 cows in 1698, VCH Northamptonshire, III, p. 23; in York in 1846 (after enclosure of larger outlying pasture commons), 484 cows and 201 horses and mares were depastured, VCH The City of York, p. 505.
104. Extrapolating from Table 4, only about 30 per cent of horse owners depastured more than one horse. A mean of 43 people per year depastured horses in these nine years, so only approximately 14 people per year depastured more than one horse.
105. Dining on geese featured in the civic ceremonies of the borough in this period. See F. R. Raines (ed.), Miscellanies, being a selection from the poems and correspondence of the Rev. Thomas Wilson BD (Chetham Society, old ser., 45, 1857), pp. 24, 44-48. Wilson's Poem XIX was entitled 'The Goose', in which he noted 'And hence, too, in boroughs together they choose/A bailiff, or mayor, with a Michaelmas Goose', p. 44. In his correspondence, Wilson used the image of fat geese as a metaphor for the candidates for bailiffs in the borough, introduction, pp. xxviii-xxix.
106. Geese gates had been larger in the seventeenth century. Lancs. RO, MBC 364, court of enquiry verdict, 1665 states that 16 geese constituted a gate that year; MBC 366, court of inquiry verdict, 1680, held that 12 geese constituted a gate, costing id.
107. A mean of 12 commons' users out of a yearly mean of 75 exercised geese rights.
108. These 206 people were comprised of 183 persons who were tenants to
109. Ownership was established for free borough houses by cross-referencing with borough rentals, see n. 33 above, and Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782'. For other lands, properties were identified on DDHCl, map 18, Clitheroe Survey 1781 and DDX 1464/1, survey and valuation of Clitheroe, 1797.
110. These tenants have been identified in a number of ways. For the 78 free borough houses, tenants can be identified by cross-referencing with Lincs. RO, BNL, box 1 Clitheroe Borough rentals 1760, 1761, 1764, 1767, 1770 & 1771, with BNL, box 'Clitheroe (C.J.'s)' Borough rental 1778, and Lancs. RO, MBC 5, Borough rental 1776. For other commonable lands the marking books provide the only clues.
111. French, 'Urban agriculture', Table 5, p. 190.
112. Lancs. RO, MBC 634 (overseers' rate, 20 Aug. 1785), MBC 730 (overseers' rate, Jan. 1789).
113. Ninety-eight out of 206 commons users (48 per cent).
114. The distinction between occasional or 'shallow' and chronic or 'deep' poverty is made by P. Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (1986), p. 39. I have encountered no evidence for cow hire or the leasing of dairies in Clitheroe sources in this period.
115. Occupation derived from W. F. Irvine (ed.), An Index to the wills and inventories now preserved in the Probate Registry at Chester from AD 1790 to 1800 (Lancashire and Cheshire Rec. Soc., 45, 1902).
116. In 1764, for example, evidence about tenants' identity exists for 65/127 properties, or 51%. Of these 65 properties, on only 21 (or 32%) did tenants exercise their rights of common in person.
117. Another example of actual practice belying theories about tenure and agrarian history, albeit in a radically different environment, occurs in S. Hipkin, 'Tenant farming and short-term leasing on Romney Marsh, 1587-1705', EcHR 53 (2000), pp. 646-76.
118. Lancs. RO, MBC 650 (draft of 1801 census) gives 283 households in the borough. There were probably no more than 250 households there before 1779. See also Self Weeks, Clitheroe, p. 5.
119. Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'BNL Subs (BQ 23)', deposition of James Standen, 15 Mar. 1784.
120. Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 120, Survey of the joint estate of Thomas Lister and Assheton Curzon in Clitheroe, 1783.
121. An answer to the apology for the conduct of Thomas Lister esq.: respecting the Borough of Clitheroe (c. 1781), pp. 47-8.
122. Lanes. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782', fo. 14. 'Owing to some ill treatment Mr. Lister had received from Mr. Curzon [his uncle and guardian] soon after he came of age [1773]; having reasons also for suspicion and dissatisfaction from the conduct of Sclater, Mr. Curzon's agent, and withal born and possessed with the idea that Mr. Curzon had enjoyed a seat for this borough entirely thro' the favor of his family'. This last opinion was apparently shared by Lister's father and uncle who sat for Clitheroe 1761-73. Lincs. RO, BNL, box 1, 'Mr. Whetiker's Observations' about 1780 Election; YAS, MD 335/23, Nathaniel Lister to Nicholas Winckley, 1 Jan. 1764.
123. Between July and Sept. 1780, Richard Eddleston (Lister's election agent in Clitheroe) purchased 8 1/2 burgages for Lister (and c. 90 acres of land), and sold him 4 of his own, for a total sum of £24,490. Eddleston admitted that he sold three of his burgages with an annual rental value of £4 10s. od. to Lister for £600 (a rate of 107 years' purchase!). Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'Subs (BQ 23)', deposition of Richard Eddleston, sen., gent., 15 Mar. 1784. In the period 1726-75, the two families had spent only £9,013 5s. od. purchasing 54 burgages. id., deposition of John Addison, Inner Temple, London, gent.
124. Ibid., 'Second part of the brief for Thomas Lister and John Parker esqs. sitting members against the petitioner Assheton Curzon esq. and the petition of Alexander Rigby and others in the interest of Mr. Curzon claiming freehold estates there and to vote in respect thereof'.
125. In 1785 Lister sold 25 burgages to Curzon for £10,000. Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782', fo. 121V.
126. Lancs. RO, DDFr 5/63 (Book of agreements respecting the Borough of Clitheroe, 1785-1824), pp. 1-6.
127. Lanes. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782', fos. 115-18, suggests Curzon appealed to parliament to vest election rights in all the freeholders in the borough.
128. YAS, MD 335/81, Rev. Thomas Collins to Thomas Lister, n. d. Collins calculated that if Lister sold two properties valued at £7,000, his gross income would be £5,450 per annum. In 1781 Nathaniel Lister warned his nephew that Assheton Curzon was claiming that Lister was £60,000 in debt! MD 335/23, Nathaniel Lister to Thomas Lister, 4 May 1781.
129. YAS, MD 335/81, Thomas Lister to David Kaye, 4 Apr. 1786.
130. Namier and Brooke (eds.), House of Commons, 1754-1790, II, pp. 287-8.
131. In addition to the 28 burgages, between 1780-82 Curzon purchased at least 90 acres of land in the borough. Lines. RO, BNL, box 1, Richard Eddleston jun. to Rev. Thomas Collins, 2 Nov. 1780.
132. YAS, MD 335/81, 'Meeting of the Corporation and other persons having interests in the moors and wastes within the borough', 30 Aug. 1785. There is no record of the names of those who attended this meeting, but there were only 24 individual and institutional owners who possessed common rights.
133. Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'Clitheroe Est. BNL (Lister v. Curzon)', 'Names of persons interested in commons and wastes', n.d. These seven included John Aspinall (an infant), the Governors of Clitheroe Grammar School, Thomas Baron, Mr. Robinson, John Oddie, James Hall and Richard Parkinson. Between them they owned only 16% of the land possessed of common rights: 93.53 and one burgage out of 568.53 (customary) of commonable land and 78 burgages.
134. Lancs. RO, DP 440 (Acc. 4026), Clitheroe Commons allotment book, 1786. Fifteen out of twenty-four proprietors had their 'beastgates' valued at 16.055. each. The remaining 9 had their's valued at 15.775.
135. YAS, MD 335/81, Richard Eddleston sen. to Rev. Thomas Collins, 2 June 1786.
136. Ibid., Richard Eddleston sen. to Thomas Lister, 31 Jan. 1787 (emphasis as in original).
137. Ibid., Richard Eddleston sen. to Thomas Lister, 28 May 1786 (emphasis as in original).
138. Lancs. RO, DP 440 (Acc. 4026).
139. Lancs. RO, MBC 1 (Clitheroe Enclosure Award 1786) gives the commons a total acreage of 288a customary (plus 2a of quarries and a well); DP 440 (Acc. 4026) (Clitheroe Commons allotment book, 1786) gives a total acreage of 335a customary. Since the final allotments were based on the latter document, this seems the more reliable figure.
140. YAS, MD 335/81, Henry Waddington to Thomas Lister, 27 Jan. 1787.
141. Ibid., Richard Eddleston sen. to Thomas Lister, 1 Apr. 1787.
142. Ibid., Henry Waddington to Thomas Lister, 18 Feb. 1787.
143. Lancs. RO, DDHCl, box 108, 'General state ... 1782', fos 8, 12, 38r-v, 89.
144. No schedule survives to accompany Lancs. RO, DDHCl, Map 18 (1781 survey), but the map gives the owner's name and the field acreage.
145. Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'Clitheroe (C.J.s)', 'Mr. G's observations on the estate of Lord R[ibblesdale]', 19 June 1801.
146. Lancs. RO, DDFr 5/29, 'Particular of estates belonging to Lord Ribblesdale in Clitheroe', n. d. [1802?]. The total 'present value' of rents was £750, the estimated value £1219. However, in England generally rents were 26 per cent higher in 1800 compared to 1780. B. A. Holderness, 'Prices, productivity, and output', in G. E. Mingay (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, VI, 1750-1850 (1989), p. 125.
147. Lancs. RO, DDX 1464/1, Survey and valuation of the township of Clitheroe by Thomas Whyman, 1797.
148. The Clitheroe militia return of 12 Nov. 1802 was a listing of all adult males in the Borough, from whom those liable to serve could be drawn in line with the provisions of 49 Geo. III, c. 90. See P. Glennie, Distinguishing men's trades: occupational sources and debates for pre-census England (Historical Geography Research Series 25, 1990), p. 49.
149. Lancs. RO, PR 1859/00 (Clitheroe Baptism Register 1722-41). Father's occupations have simply been summed per instance recorded, not totalled by individual.
150. YAS, MD 335/81, Henry Waddington to Thomas Lister, 3 Mar. 1787.
151. Lancs. RO, MBC 730 (Clitheroe overseers' poor rate, Jan. 1789). Thomas Wilson wrote to a correspondent in Liverpool in 1791 noting that Eddisford Mill had recently burned to the ground, 'the loss is said to amount to £15,000, £5,000 of which was insured in London'. Raines, 'Rev. Thomas Wilson', p. 146.
152. Lancs. RO, DDX 28/123, Clitheroe court leet call book, 30 Apr. 1795. Despite this activity, Lord Brownlow's surveyor thought Clitheroe lacked any manufacturing trade, but noted that 'its situation, amidst the flourishing and commercial towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, admits the hope of its becoming ... a place of more consequence'. Lincs. RO, BNL, box 'Clitheroe (CJ's)', 'Mr. G's Observations ...', 19 June 1801.
153. Since this article was written, a document has been found in the Earl Howe estate archive in the Buckinghamshire Record Office (AR 94/80/1350). This is undated, but it is in a seventeenth-rather than eighteenth-century hand. Entitled 'Reasons wherefore it is desired that the out-pastures belonging to Clitheroe should be inclosed and divided', it gives eight justifications for enclosure, which differ completely from the cursory resolutions of 30 August 1785. The document complains that 'those that have the greatest right get the least shares; and those that have least right or none at all, get the most'. Particularly in the management of wood rights and lime burning, 'great and many factions and contentions doe arise'. The burden of management placed on the non-resident landowners, the 'out-burgesses' was also a grievance. They sought enclosure to produce 'very good arable land, meadow or pasture ... inriching ... the Burrow', and more particularly 'the out-burgesses that have the most considerable estates ... whose tenants are put to the greatest service, that hereby would ... have the greatest benefit and profit'. In short, 'this division and inclosure is the rather desired, because ... it can be injurious to none that have any right therein ... [when] done by mutual consent and agreement'. Clearly, the document signalled an earlier attempt by the larger landowners, and tenants, to exclude those who leased commons' rights, or who made unauthorised use of these resources. Despite the complex management system, evidently use was contested, and disputes arose between property holders and lessees. The process of agrarian capitalism, of the accumulation of rights, and the emergence of absentee landlords, was rendering this shared resource increasingly anomalous long before the 17805.