Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:22:15.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Before the breaking of the day, in a riotous manner and with great shouts and outcries’: Disputes over Common Land in Shropshire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2015

JAMES P. BOWEN
JAMES P. BOWEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Roxby Building, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZT, UK [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Enclosure disputes have long attracted attention given their perceived political motivations, the importance of custom and customary practices in legitimising action and various forms of protest. Based on research undertaken at local and national record offices and the study of both written records and maps, this paper explores a series of disputes over common land in the wood-pasture countryside of Shropshire, placing them within the wider historiography concerning enclosure riots and popular protest. It complements the existing body of local and regional studies which have provided insight into the national historical context of the enclosure process. Historians need to examine economic and social developments at a local level to ascertain the causation of enclosure protest and the motivation of those involved. This evidence suggests that disputes arose between lords and tenants over the loss of customary rights and also neighbouring manorial lords as a result of ownership or boundary disputes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Rural History , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 2015 , pp. 133 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Recognising the problems of defining what constituted a riot, Edward Coke wrote: ‘There is a diversity betweene levying of war and committing of a great riot, a rout, or an unlawfull assembly. For example, as if three, or foure, or more, doe rise to burn, or put down an inclosure in Dale, which the lord of the manor of Dale hath made there in that particular place; this or the like is a Riot, or Rout, or an unlawfull Assembly, and no Treason. But if they has risen of purpose to alter religion established within the realme, or laws, or to go from town to town generally, and to cast downe inclosures, this is a levying of war (though there be no great number of conspirators) within the purvieu of this statute, because the pretence is publick and general, and not private in particular’. Coke, E., The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England Concerning High Treason, and Other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminall Cases (London, 1648), p. 9.Google Scholar

2. Ravensdale, J. R., Liable to Floods: Village Landscape on the Edge of the Fens, AD 450–1850 (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar; Thirsk, J., English Peasant Farming: The Agrarian History of Lincolnshire from Tudor to Recent Times (London, 1957)Google Scholar; Williams, M., The Draining of the Somerset Levels (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Pettit, P. A. J., The Royal Forests of Northamptonshire: A Study in their Economy 1558–1714 (Gateshead, 1968)Google Scholar; McDonagh, B. A. K., ‘Subverting the Ground: Private Property and Public Protest in the Sixteenth-Century Yorkshire Wolds’, Agricultural History Review, 57:2 (2009), 191–206.Google Scholar

3. Gay, E. F., ‘The Midland Revolt and the Inquisitions of Depopulation of 1607’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, New Series, 18 (1904), 195–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, J., ‘The Midland Revolt of 1607’ in Charlesworth, A., ed., An Atlas of Rural Protest in Britain 1548–1900 (London, 1983), pp. 32–36 Google Scholar; Walter, J., ‘A “rising of the people”? The Oxfordshire Rising of 1596’, in Walter, J., Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 73–123 Google Scholar; Hindle, S., ‘Imagining Insurrection in Seventeenth-Century England: Representations of the Midland Rising of 1607’, History Workshop Journal, 66 (2008), 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Neeson, J. M., Commoners: Common Rights, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820 (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar; Shaw-Taylor, L., ‘The Management of Common Land in the Lowlands of Southern England circa 1500 to circa 1850’, in De Moor, M., Shaw-Taylor, L. and Warde, P., eds, The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c. 1500–1850 (Turnhout, 2002), pp. 59–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winchester, A. J. L., The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England and the Scottish Borders 1400–1700 (Edinburgh, 2000)Google Scholar; Winchester, A. J. L., ‘Upland Commons in Northern England’, in Moor, Shaw-Taylor and Warde, Management of Common Land, pp. 33–57 Google Scholar; Straughton, E. A., Common Grazing in the Northern English Uplands, 1800–1965: A History of National Policy and Local Practice with Special Attention to the Case of Cumbria (Lampeter, 2008)Google Scholar; Fox, C., The Personality of Britain (Cardiff, 1932).Google Scholar

5. Wanklyn, M. ‘Rural Riots in Seventeenth Century Shropshire’, in Charlesworth, A., ed., Rural Social Change and Conflicts Since 1500 (Hull, 1983), pp. 7–17 Google Scholar; Harrison, C. J., ‘Fire on the Chase: Rural Riots in Sixteenth-Century Staffordshire’, in Morgan, P. and Phillips, A. D. M., eds., Staffordshire Histories: Essays in Honour of Michael Greenslade (Keele, 1999), pp. 97–126 Google Scholar; Rackham, O., The History of the Countryside: The Classic History of Britain's Landscape, Flora and Fauna (London, 2000), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

6. Thirsk, J., Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History in England, 1500–1750 (Basingstoke, 1987), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Statute of Merton stated that a landlord's free tenants were to have sufficient pasture ‘as much as pertains to their tenements’, however, provided that tenants had ‘sufficient pasture with free entry and exit, as aforesaid’, lords were allowed to ‘lawfully and freely make their profit from the residue’. Statute of Merton (20 Hen. III).

7. Dyer, C., ‘Woodlands and Wood-Pasture in Western England’ in Thirsk, J., ed., The English Rural Landscape (Oxford, 2000), p. 98.Google Scholar Statute of Merton (20 Hen. III); Statute of Westminster II (13 Edw. I).

8. Manning, R. B., Village Revolts: Social Protest and Popular Disturbances in England, 1509–1640 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar

9. Manning, Village Revolts, p. 61.

10. Sharp, B., In Contempt of All Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660 (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Lindley, K., Fenland Riots and the English Revolution (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Underdown, D., Revel, Riot, and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Holmes, C., ‘Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Popular Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century’, in Fletcher, A. and Stevenson, J., eds, Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 166–95.Google Scholar

11. Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, pp. 208–38; Wrightson, K., ‘The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England’, in Griffiths, D., Fox, A. and Hindle, S., eds, The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 10–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wood, A., Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Hindle, S., ‘Persuasion and Protest in the Caddington Common Enclosure Dispute 1635–1639’, Past and Present, 158:1 (1998), 37–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hipkin, S., ‘“Sitting on his penny rent”: Conflict and Right of Common in Faversham Blean, 1595–1610’, Rural History, 11:1 (2000), 1–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Falvey, H., ‘Crown Policy and Local Economic Context in the Berkhamsted Common Enclosure Dispute, 1618–42’, Rural History, 12:2 (2001), 123–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Hindle, ‘Persuasion’, 43.

14. Falvey, ‘Crown Policy’, 131.

15. Healey, J., ‘The Political Culture of the English Commons, c.1550–1650’, Agricultural History Review, 60:2 (2012), 266–87.Google Scholar

16. Healey, ‘Political Culture’, 286–7.

17. Innes, J., ‘The “mixed economy of welfare” in Early Modern England: Assessments of the Options from Hale to Malthus (c. 1683–1803)’, in Daunton, M., ed., Charity, Self-Interest and Welfare in the English Past (London, 1996).Google Scholar

18. Hindle, S., ‘‘Not by bread only?’ Common Right, Parish Relief and Endowed Charity in a Forest Economy, c. 1600–1800’, in King, S., Tomkins, A., eds, The Poor in England 1700–1850: An Economy of Makeshifts (Manchester, 2003), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 65.

20. Ibid.

21. Roberts, B. K. and Wrathmell, S., Region and Place: A Study of English Rural Settlement (London, 2002).Google Scholar

22. Miller, E., ed., The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume 3: 1348–1500, p. 105 Google Scholar; Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, pp. 80–85.

23. Hey, D. G., An English Rural Community: Myddle under the Tudors and Stuarts (Leicester, 1974), p. 10 Google Scholar; Edwards, P. R., ‘Competition for Land, Common Rights and Drainage in the Weald Moors (Shropshire): The Cherrington and Meeson Disputes, 1576–1612’, in Hoyle, R. W., ed., People, Landscape and Alternative Agriculture: Essays for Joan Thirsk (Exeter, 2004), pp. 39–41 Google Scholar; Jones, R. E., ‘Population and Agrarian Change in an Eighteenth Century Shropshire Parish’, Local Population Studies, 1 (1968), 6–29 Google Scholar; Tankard, D., ‘The Regulation of Cottage Building in Seventeenth Century Sussex’, Agricultural History Review, 59:1 (2011), 18–35 Google Scholar; Bettey, J. H., ‘Seventeenth Century Squatters’ Dwellings: Some Documentary Evidence’, Vernacular Architecture, 13 (1982), 28–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Everitt, A. M., ‘Farm Labourers’, in Thirsk, J., ed., Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume 4: 1500–1640 (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 396–592.Google Scholar

24. Wanklyn, ‘Rural Riots’, p. 7.

25. Blanchard, I., ‘Population Change, Enclosure, and the Early Tudor Economy’, Economic History Review, 23:3 (1970), 427–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watts, S., ‘The Significance of Colonisation in Two North Shropshire Parishes: Wem and Whitchurch, c.1560–1660’, Midland History, 25 (2000), 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, p. 127.

27. The National Archives, Kew, London (hereafter TNA): C 2/Eliz/A8/58; Wrightson, K., English Society, 1580–1680 (London, 2003), pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

28. Purton, R. C., ‘A Description of Ye Clee, Ye Lordships, Comoners and Strakers Adjoyn'd Made About 1612, 10 JAC’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, Part 2, Second Series, 8 (1896), 195–8Google Scholar; Rowley, T., ‘The Clee Forest – A Study in Common Rights’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 58 (1965–68), 48–67.Google Scholar

29. Hill, M. C., ‘The Demesne and the Waste’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 62 (1984), 29.Google Scholar

30. Thirsk, J., England's Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History, 1500–1750 (London, 1987), p. 28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thirsk, J., ‘The Farming Regions of England’, in Thirsk, , Agrarian History of England and Wales, pp. 99–108.Google Scholar

31. Phythian-Adams, C., ‘Introduction: An Agenda for English Local History’, in Phythian-Adams, C., ed., Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580–1850: Cultural Provinces and English Local History (London, 1996), p. 9.Google Scholar

32. Hoskins, W. G., The Midland Peasant: The Economic and Social History of a Leicestershire Village (Chichester, 2008)Google Scholar; Gray, H. L., English Field Systems (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 123–7Google Scholar; Roberts, B. K., ‘Field Systems of the West Midlands’, in Baker, A. R. H. and Butlin, R. A., eds, Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 188–223 Google Scholar; Rowley, T., The Making of the English Landscape: The Shropshire Landscape (London, 1972), pp. 137–44Google Scholar; Sylvester, D., The Rural Landscape of the Welsh Borderland: A Study in Historical Geography (London, 1969)Google Scholar; A. Fox, H. S., ‘The Chronology of Enclosure and Economic Development in Medieval Devon’, Economic History Review, New Series, 28: 2 (1975), 202.Google Scholar

33. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, p. 171; Wordie, J. R., ‘The Chronology of English Enclosure’, Economic History Review, New Series, 36: 4 (1983), 490.Google Scholar

34. Pollard, A. F. and Blatcher, M., ‘Hayward Townshend's Journals’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 12 (1934–1935), 16 Google Scholar; Hammer, P. E. J., ‘Coningsby, Sir Thomas (1550–1625)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004 [online].Google Scholar

35. Toulmin-Smith, J., ed., Leland's Itinerary in England and Wales In or About the Years 1535–1543 (London, 1910), pp. 16–17 Google Scholar; Adnitt, H. W., ed., ‘The Itinerary of John Leland so far as it Relates to Shropshire’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 4 (1881), 127–55Google Scholar; Blith, W., The English Improver Improved or the Survey of Husbandry Surveyed (London, 1652), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

36. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, pp. 119–68; Edwards, P. R., ‘The Development of Dairy Farming on the North Shropshire Plain in the Seventeenth Century’, Midland History, 4:3 (1978), 175–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards, P. R., ‘The Horse Trade of Shropshire in the Early Modern Period’, in Chartres, J. and Hey, D. G., eds, English Rural Society, 1500–1800 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 227–49Google Scholar; Thirsk, England's Agricultural Regions, p. 18.

37. Rowley, Shropshire Landscape, p. 136.

38. McRae, A., God Speed the Plough: The Representation of Agrarian England, 1500–1660 (Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar

39. Thompson, E. P., ‘The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century’, Past and Present, 50:1 (1971), 76–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, E. P., Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture (London, 1991), pp. 185–258.Google Scholar

40. Slack, W. J., The Lordship of Oswestry, 1399–1607 (Shrewsbury, 1951), p. 68 Google Scholar. The reference for the original is: John Rylands University Library, Manchester: Latin MS 274.

41. Gough, R., The History of Myddle, ed. Hey, D. G. (Harmondsworth, 1981), pp. 62–4Google Scholar. The reference for the original is: Shropshire Archives, Shrewsbury (hereafter SA) 1525/1.

42. Richard Gough recorded the unsuccessful cultivation of Myddlewood during the Civil War writing the common was ‘cutt, and burnt, and sowed with corne, which was a very strong crop; the next was a crop of barley, which was soe poore, that most of it was pulled up by the roote, because it was too short to bee cutt’. Gough, Myddle, p. 63

43. Garbet, S., The History of Wem and the following townships Edstaston, Cotton, Lowe and Ditches, Hortons, Newtown, Wolverley, Northwood, Tilly, Sleap, Aston, and Lacon (London, 1818), p. 283 Google Scholar.

44. Garbet, History of Wem, p. 336.

45. Neeson, Commoners; Hindle, S., On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England c. 1550–1750 (Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar; Hey, English Rural Community, p. 31.

46. TNA C 1/414/32.

47. Hindle, On the Parish?, p. 32.

48. SA 5460/1/1.

49. For gleaning: Hindle, On the Parish?, p. 41; Humphries, J., ‘Enclosures, Common Rights and Women: The Proletarianisation of Families in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Britain’, Journal of Economic History, 50:1, (1990), 38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, P., ‘Customary Rights and Women's Earning: The Importance of Gleaning to the Rural Laboring Poor’, Economic History Review, 44:3 (1991), 461–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, P., ‘Gleaners, Farmers and the Failure of Legal Sanction in England 1750–1850’, Past and Present, 125 (1989), 116–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, P., ‘Legal Change, Customary Right and Social Conflict in Late Eighteenth Century England: The Origins of the Great Gleaning Case of 1788’, Law and History Review, 10:1 (1992), 1–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neeson, Commoners, pp. 313–14; Wood, A., ‘The Place of Custom in Plebeian Political Culture: England, 1550–1800’, Social History, 22:1 (1997), 54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. For stinting: Winchester, A. J. L and Straughton, E. A., ‘Stints and Sustainability: Managing Stock Levels on Common Land in England, c.1600–2006’, Agricultural History Review, 59:1 (2010), 30–48 Google Scholar; Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, pp. 117–18, 121, 126, 153.

51. Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, Cows, Common Rights and Parliamentary Enclosure: The Evidence of Contemporary Comment c. 1760 – 1810’, Past and Present, 171 (2001), 95–126; Birtles, S., ‘Common Land, Poor Relief and Enclosure: The Use of Manorial Resources in Fulfilling Parish Obligations, 1601–1834’, Past and Present, 165 (1999), 74–106 Google Scholar; Broad, J., ‘The Smallholder and Cottager after Deforestation: A Legacy of Poverty?’ in Broad, J. and Hoyle, R.W., eds, Bernwood: The Life and Afterlife of a Forest (Preston, 1997), pp. 90–107 Google Scholar; Bushaway, R. W., ‘From Custom to Crime: Wood Gathering in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century England: A Focus for Conflict in Hampshire, Wiltshire and the South’, in Rule, J. G., ed., Outside the Law: Studies in Crime and Order, 1650–1810 (Exeter, 1982), pp. 65–101 Google Scholar; Hindle, S., ‘Power, Poor Relief and Social Relations in Holland Fen, c. 1600–1800’, Historical Journal, 41 (1998), 67–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neeson, Commoners; Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, Cows, Common Rights’, 95–126; Turner, M. and Woodward, D., ‘Theft from the Common Man: The Loss of Common Use Rights in England’, in Brotherstone, T. and Pilling, G., eds, History, Economic History and Marxism: Essays in Memory of Tom Kemp (London, 1996), pp. 51–78.Google Scholar

52. Gateward's case of 1607 restricted the right of common to copyholders and leaseholders, thereby excluding cottagers and squatters who claimed access on the basis of inhabitancy. Thompson, Customs in Common, p. 130.

53. Hopkins, E., ‘The Re-Leasing of the Ellesmere, 1637–1642’, Agricultural History Review, 10:1 (1962), 14–28 Google Scholar; Watts, S., ‘From Moss and Moorish Ground to Fertile Farmland: The Early Seventeenth Century Reclamation of Tetchill Moor’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 80 (2005), 125–31. SA 212/Box 345/21–23.Google Scholar

54. Nair, G., Highley: The Development of a Community, 1550–1850 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 80–3Google Scholar; Watts, S, ed., The Glebe Terriers of Shropshire Part 1 (Abdon to Llanfair Waterdine), Shropshire Record Series, 5 (Keele, 2001), p. 122.Google Scholar

55. Birtles, ‘Common Land, Poor Relief and Enclosure’, 74–106; Broad, ‘The Smallholder and Cottager after Deforestation’, pp. 90–107; Bushaway, ‘From Custom to Crime’, pp. 65–101; Hindle, ‘Power, Poor Relief and Social Relations’, 67–96; Neeson, Commoners; Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, Cows, Common Rights’, 95–126; Turner and Woodward, ‘Theft from the Common Man’, pp. 51–78.

56. Snell, K. D. M., ‘The Culture of Local Xenophobia’, Social History, 28:1 (2003), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Braddick, M. J. and Walter, J., eds, Negotiating Power in Early Modern England; Order, Hierarchy and Subordination in Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 33–34, 103–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. Whitfield, J. R. W., ‘The Enclosure Movement in North Shropshire’, Transactions of the Caradoc and Severn Valley Field Club, 11 (1939–42), 53–62; SA 3607/II/A/33–58.Google Scholar

59. Jones, M. A., ‘Lee, Rowland (c.1487–1543)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004 [online].Google Scholar

60. Whitfield, ‘Enclosure’, 54–5.

61. Ibid.

62. TNA STAC 3/5/3.

63. Whitfield, ‘Enclosure’, 56.

64. TNA STAC 2/20/125; SA 3607/II/A/45.

65. TNA STAC 220/125.

66. Whitfield, ‘Enclosure’, 54; Rowley, Shropshire Landscape, p. 166.

67. Ibid., p. 165.

68. SA 212/60.

69. SA 212/60.

70. SA 212/60. For approvement: Shannon, W., ‘Approvement and Improvement in the Lowland Wastes of Early Modern Lancashire’, in Hoyle, R. W., ed., Custom, Improvement and The Landscape in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2011), pp. 175–9.Google Scholar

71. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 4, p. 125.

72. SA 1514/608, TNA STAC 8/49/7, TNA STAC 8/86/18, STAC 8/87/20, TNA STAC 8/182/2, TNA STAC 8/184/2; SA 2922/1/5/1–19.

73. Wanklyn, ‘Rural Riots’, p. 10.

74. Rocque, J., Actual Survey of the County of Salop (London, 1752): SA 552/8/916; C. and J. Greenwood, Map of the County of Salop from an Actual Survey made in the years 1826 and 1827: SA 5586/13/141.Google Scholar

75. An Act For Dividing and Inclosing certain Commons or Waste Lands, in the Townships of Prees, Darlestone, Fauls, Mickley, Willaston, Moreton Say, Longford, and Stanton upon Hineheath, in the County of Salop (35 Geo. 3, c. 7): SA 3607/III/E/1; SA QE/1/2/10; SA 327/5/9/3; SA P221/T/2/1–2; Tate, ‘A Hand List’, p. 31; Rowley, Shropshire Landscape, pp. 154–6.

76. Slack, Lordship, p. 20; Hey, English Rural Community, p. 165.

77. Wankyln, ‘Rural Riots’, p. 10; Sharp, Contempt; Lindley, Fenland Riots; Manning, Village Revolts.

78. Wrightson, K., ‘“Sorts of People” in Tudor and Stuart England’, in Barry, J. and Brooks, C., The Middling Sort of People: Culture, Society and Politics in England, 1550–1800 (London, 1994), pp. 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. Baugh, G. C., ed., Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 10, Munslow Hundred (part), The Liberty and Borough of Wenlock (Oxford, 1998), p. 37; SA 2922/1/1/1–2.Google Scholar

80. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 10, p. 37.

81. SA 1514/608.

82. Thirsk, J., ‘Enclosing and Engrossing’, in Thirsk, , Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume 4, pp. 200–55.Google Scholar

83. SA 1514/608.

84. SA 1514/608.

85. SA 1514/608.

86. SA 1514/608.

87. SA 1514/608.

88. SA 1514/608.

89. SA 1514/608.

90. SA 1514/608.

91. SA 327/2/4/1/6/9/9.

92. SA 327/2/4/1/6/9/9.

93. Birtles, ‘Common Land, Poor Relief and Enclosure’, 74–106.

94. SA 327/2/4/1/6/9/9.

95. Hindle, ‘Persuasion’, 41.

96. SA 11/237.

97. SA 11/237

98. SA 11/237.

99. TNA STAC 8/184/2.

100. TNA STAC 4/3/53; TNA STAC 2/30/32; TNA STAC 2/30/49; TNA STAC 2/30/51.

101. TNA STAC 2/27/182.

102. Dyer, ‘Conflict’, p. 24; Blomley, N., ‘Making Private Property: Enclosure, Common Right and the Work of Hedges’, Rural History, 18:1 (2007), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For illicit hedge-breaking and the use of wood by the poor, see Hindle, On the Parish?, pp. 43–7.

103. TNA MPB 1/17/2; British Library, London (hereafter BL) Royal MS.18.D.III.f.87.

104. SA 2922/1/5/8.

105. SA 2922/1/5/14.

106. SA 2922/1/5/1.

107. SA 2922/1/5/14.

108. SA 2922/1/5/15.

109. Hopper, A. J., ‘Wolryche, Sir Thomas, first baronet (1598–1668)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [online].Google Scholar

110. BL Royal MS.18.D.III.fol.87; TNA E 178/2905.

111. Manwood, J., A Treatise of the Forrest Lawes (London, 1598).Google Scholar

112. Hammersley, G., ‘The Crown Woods and their Exploitation in the 16th and 17th Centuries’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 30 (1957), 136–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113. Sharp, Contempt, pp. 82–125.

114. Unpublished typescript B. Trinder (1999): SA q OJ 55.5.

115. Wanklyn, ‘Rural Riots’, p. 10.

116. Bailey, M., ‘The Concept of the Margin in the Medieval English Economy’, Economic History Review, 42:1 (1989), 1–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey, M., A Marginal Economy? East Anglian Breckland in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 319–22Google Scholar; Dyer, C., ‘“The Retreat from Marginal Land”: The Growth and Decline of Medieval Rural Settlements’, in Aston, M., Austin, D. and Dyer, C., eds, The Rural Settlements of Medieval England (Oxford, 1989), pp. 48–50 Google Scholar; Winchester, Harvest; Fox, H. S. A., Dartmoor's Alluring Uplands: Transhumance and Pastoral Management in the Middle Ages (Exeter, 2011).Google Scholar

117. Gadsden, G. D., The Law of Commons (London, 1988), p. 12.Google Scholar

118. Rowley, Shropshire Landscape, pp. 24–8; Sylvester, D., ‘Rural Settlement in Shropshire: A Geographical Interpretation’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 44 (1927–8), 215.Google Scholar

119. Winchester, Harvest, p. 34. This was not exclusively the case. For example, Hoskins noted Wigston Magna's complicated manorial structure, it being divided between the earl of Oxford and the Turvile estate. Hoskins, W. G., The Midland Peasant: Economic and Social History of a Leicestershire Village (Chichester, 2008), pp. 95–6.Google Scholar

120. SA 731/1/8/1–8.

121. SA 731/1/8/1.

122. SA 731/1/8/6.

123. SA 322/2/348/13.

124. Hill, M. C., ‘The Wealdmoors, 1560–1660’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 54 (1953), 255–326 Google Scholar; Edwards, P. R., ‘Disputes in the Weald Moors in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 63 (1985), 1–10 Google Scholar; G. Plaxton, ‘Some Natural Observations Made in the Parishes of Kinardsey and Donington in Shropshire by the Reverend Mr. George Plaxton’, Philosophical Transactions (1683–1775), 25 (1706 – 1707), 2419–20; J. Broadway, ‘Plaxton, George (1647/8–1720)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [online].

125. Whyte, N., Inhabiting the Landscape: Place, Custom and Memory, 1500–1800 (Oxford, 2009), pp. 91–124.Google Scholar

126. SRO D593/B/1/19/6/4.

127. SA 972/7/1/33.

128. SRO D593/E/5/1–5.

129. Whyte, Inhabiting, pp. 91–2, 109, 116–18.

130. For example, Eyton referred to a series of royal charters which granted the right of free warren in Prees. The first is dated 1259 when Henry II granted to Roger, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ‘the privilege of free warren in Prees’. Secondly, a charter of 28th January 1307 granted the right ‘to exercise free warren’ in the manor. At Myddle, Lord Egerton acquired a charter for a free warren on ‘Haremeare Heath, Holloway Hills, and the rocky grounds, (where the plow cannot goe) in those pieces called the Hill Leasows, which lye between Holloway Hills, and Myddle Hill’. When, on 19th October 1699, Sir Robert Corbett wanted to enclose part of Stoke Heath, near Market Drayton an agreement was reached with the freeholders of Stoke upon Tern and Wistanswick that he should ‘keep down’ or ‘destroy the rabbits’ in exchange for the enclosed parcel. This was presumably a result of the pressure which rabbits put upon the common, reducing the availability of pasture for livestock. An ancient warren and warrener's lodge are depicted on an early seventeenth-century map of Rudge Heath, a large area of unproductive common waste. Warrens were located in other upland parts of the county, namely the Long Mynd, Brown Clee and Morfe and Longnor and Frodesley Parks. Eyton, R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire, 9 (London, 1859), pp. 245–6Google Scholar; Gough, Myddle, pp. 60–1; SA 327/5/9/1/1; SA 327/5/9/1/2; SA 330/13; Plymley, General View, p. 268; Sheail, J., Rabbits and their History (Newton Abbot, 1971)Google Scholar; Sheail, J., ‘Rabbits and Agriculture in Post-Medieval England’, Journal of Historical Geography, 4:4 (1978), 343–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For studies of the exploitation of rabbits see: Bailey, M., ‘The Rabbit and the Medieval East Anglian Economy’, Agricultural History Review, 36:1 (1988), 1–20 Google Scholar; Bailey, Marginal Economy?, pp. 128–35, 251–6; Linehan, C., ‘Deserted Sites and Rabbit Warrens on Dartmoor’, Medieval Archaeology, 10 (1966), 113–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, A. and Spratt, D., ‘The Rabbit Warrens of the Tabular Hills, North Yorkshire’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 63 (1991), 177–206.Google Scholar

131. For example, in his seventeenth-century description of the commons and wastes of the manor of Whitchurch the agent of the Duke of Bridgewater wrote, ‘Seeing that Prees Heath and Whitchurch Heath be large common it seems that the game of rabbits might be easily increased and the warren much enlarged to the value of £50 per annum’: SA 212/60.

132. TNA E 178/3077.

133. Salt, T., ‘A Concise Account of Ancient Documents Relating to the Honor Forest and Borough of Clun in Shropshire’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 11 (Shrewsbury, 1858), 18. Winchester, Harvest, pp. 78–9, 95, 116–17, 148Google Scholar. Kerry (Montgomeryshire) Inclosure (37 Geo. 3, c. 115). Powys Archives, Llandrindod Wells (hereafter PA) M/QS/RA/14/R; PA M/QS/RA/9/R.

134. SA 322/12/165 (14th October 1697).

135. SA D3651/B/6/5/36/5 (24th June 1764); Hey, English Rural Community, p. 37; Staffordshire Record Office, Stafford (hereafter SRO): D641/2/D/2/3 (1674).

136. Osborne, B. S., ‘Common Lands, Mineral Rights and Industry: Changing Evaluations in an Industrializing Society’, Journal of Historical Geography, 4:3 (1978), 231–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, J. O., ‘Private Enterprise v Manorial Rights – Mineral Property Disputes in Eighteenth Century Glamorgan’, Welsh History Review, 9 (1979), 155–75Google Scholar; Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics.

137. TNA STAC 8/86/18; TNA STAC 8/195/8. Victoria County History: Shropshire, Volume 10, pp. 257–93.

138. Wanklyn, ‘Rural Riots’, pp. 11–13; Nef, J. U., The Rise of the British Coal Industry (London, 1966), p. 208 Google Scholar.

139. Hatcher, J., The History of the British Coal Industry, Volume I Before 1700 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 147–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; For the parish of Broseley: in 1670, 180 were exempt; in 1671–2, 188 were exempt; in 1672–3, 179 were exempt; and in 1673–4, 179 were exempt. TNA E179/342. I am grateful to Dr S. Watts who made the hearth tax data available.

140. Trinder, Industrial Revolution, pp. 186–201. It is important to note that the statute regulating cottage building did not apply to labourers in any mineral works, coal mines and quarries. Act against the erecting and maintaining of cottages, 31 Elizabeth I (1589). In the case of Myddle, Gough noted that despite the waves of immigration and the felling of much woodland, there was ‘sufficient left for timber and fire bot for most tenements’. Gough, Myddle, p. 175.

141. SA 665/256; TNA STAC 8/135/7.

142. Thirsk, J., ed., Agrarian History of England and Wales, Volume 5: 1640–1750 Google Scholar. Part 1. Regional Farming Systems (Cambridge, 1984), p. 131.

143. W. Shannon, ‘Approvement and Improvement in Early-Modern England: Enclosure in the Lowland Wastes of Lancashire c. 1500–11700’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Lancaster University, 2010); Brooks, C. W., Law, Politics and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2010), p. 275 Google Scholar; Hindle, S., The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, 1550–1640 (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 80–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144. SA 665/256.

145. SA 665/256.

146. Trinder, Industrial Revolution, pp. 30–3.

147. Wanklyn ‘Rural Riots’, p. 10.

148. McDonagh, ‘Subverting’, 200.

149. SA 665/256.

150. SA 665/256.

151. McDonagh, ‘Subverting’, 206.

152. Shannon, ‘Approvement’, p. 194.

153. Whyte, Inhabiting, p. 87.

154. Shannon, ‘Approvement’, p. 192.

155. Healey, ‘Political Culture’, 266–87.