A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



Perhaps the most striking feature in the reconstruction of the county in 

 the seventeenth century is the rapid way in which so large a proportion of 

 the land was inclosed.' Inclosures were of two kinds, for pasture and for 

 tillage. The former generally occurred in the fifteenth century, and in many 

 parts of the midland counties at least were accompanied by much depopula- 

 tion and misery. In Durham there was little inclosure for either arable or 

 pasture before the seventeenth century, as only a small part of the county 

 was under the plough, but we do find a few scattered references to inclosures 

 of various kinds. 



One of the earliest and most interesting is at Chester le Street in 1343, 

 when Richard de Gillyng and others were tried for breaking down the 

 inclosure of Henry Hog which he had made upon the bishop's waste at 

 Chester by demise of the said bishop.^ This inclosure was probably for a 

 small ' park ' or orchard, such as we find often referred to in the Halmote 

 Books ^ and other records. Sometimes we find payments made for relaxation 

 of rights of common of pasture, when an inclosure was made from the waste.* 



The earliest inclosure of the ordinary kind seems to be that of Heigh- 

 ington and Walworth Moor in 1551. Then there is a gap according to our 

 records until 1618, when there was a great inclosure at Billingham. From 

 that date until 1700 a large proportion of the common-fields of Durham 

 were inclosed and divided among the tenants. Unfortunately we do not 

 know in every case the area inclosed, or the proportions of arable and 

 pasture. The usual process employed can be gathered from a concrete 

 example such as the inclosure of Middridge affords. 



Middridge is an ancient episcopal vill lying a few miles south-east of 

 Bishop Auckland. It suffered heavily in the Black Death, and probably in 

 the later visitations. In September, 1634, the freeholders, copyholders, and 

 lessees of the township agreed to procure a division of the town-fields. The 

 bishop gave his licence on i December, 1634, for the division of the 

 ' Town-fields and pastures.' However, some of the copyholders objected at 

 the last moment, for as one of them put it, the freehold and non-freehold 

 strips were so intermixed that he might be awarded a piece of freehold and 

 so 'break his tenure.' Answer was made that the moor alone was to be 

 divided, but the bishop had been appealed to, and he vetoed the inclosure 

 when a commission decided that it would be ' very prejudicial to divers 

 farmers and poor of that town.' 



However, those in favour of the division managed to bully some of the 

 opposition to consent. In 1635 the commissioners appointed for the 

 inclosure made their award, apparently disregarding the past status of the 

 strips, and William Jackson, one of the ' inclosure party,' received half an 

 oxgang (i.e. ji acres) more than his share. The ' anti-inclosure ' party were 

 still strong, however, and on 3 April, 1637, an order was obtained from the 

 Durham Court of Chancery stating that William Jackson and other tenants 

 had prayed for relief against Richard Pallacer, for opposing the division 



' See 'The Inclosure of Common Fields' by Miss E. M. Leonaid, in Trans. Roy. Hist. Soe. (New Ser.), 

 six, loi. 



' Dur. Curs. No. 29, m. 16 d. 



' Dur. Halmote R. (Surtecs Soc. Ixxxii), 48, 1 24. Cf. Dur. Curs. No. 14, fol. 761, where the bishop is inclos- 

 ing his ancient demesne and letting it as chekerland, although the tenants claimed common of pasture over it. 



* Dur. Acct. R. (Surtees Soc. xcix-ciii), 630. 



238 



