SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



contrary to the agreement made with the bishop. The answer was that 

 Pallacer's party owned 20 oxgangs, while those in favour of the inclosure only 

 held 1 8 oxgangs, and moreover the agreement was to divide the moor only. 

 The court decided, however, that the chief point was the location of the 

 freehold strips, and as these could not, from lapse of time, be distinguished, 

 it was settled that ' acres ' should be awarded in lieu thereof, and a sufficient 

 part of the township was to be kept in tillage. 



Following on this decision came the award of 16 May, 1638, which 

 was read in court and would have been confirmed had not one or two of the 

 tenants still opposed division, although they had entered upon their allotted 

 ground. Then a new factor of opposition appeared, for the farmers of the 

 tithes feared that the inclosure of the fields would diminish the amount of 

 land kept in tillage. 



Confirmation of the award was therefore postponed, but as some of the 

 tenants had been put to expense in preparing their allotted ground they were 

 allowed to sell it or hold it till further order was made; and on 29 August, 

 1639, Dunn, one of the opposing tenants, was restrained from interfering 

 with Jackson's inclosure. 



Meanwhile a certain Craggs, who was interested in the tithes, pro- 

 cured the interference of the king's attorney-general, who commenced a suit 

 in the Exchequer because the tenants who had inclosed their lands were now 

 devoting a very small portion to tillage, and it seemed likely that the whole 

 vill would become meadow and pasture. The reply of the defendants is 

 valuable for the picture it gives of general decay and loss of fertility in the 

 old system. They agreed that the larger proportion of the land was under 

 the plough, but asserted that of late the tithe corn had been insignificant 

 because by constant cultivation the lands were so wasted and worn that scarcely 

 any crops could be obtained. The only remedy was to put the old pasture 

 land under the plough and give the old arable a rest. The bishop's consent to 

 the division had been obtained, and they had offered compensation to Craggs. 



The attorney-general denied that the ground was worn, and maintained 

 that the conversion of arable to pasture had been carried too far. It was 

 proved also that the bishop had only consented when assured that the 

 cottagers freely agreed, 1 but their agreement seems to have been procured 

 by threats from Jackson. As a result the court stayed the proceedings in 

 the Durham Chancery, and sent a commission down to value the tithe and to 

 report on the situation. Acting on the advice of these commissioners the 

 court ordered that 66 acres of each field should be tilled according to the 

 course of husbandry so as to prevent any diminution of tithe. This final 

 decree is dated 1642, and a few months afterwards the Chancery of Durham 

 decided that, subject to these conditions, the division of the fields should hold 

 good. A final commission was appointed to settle the question of compensa- 

 tion for highways, but at the beginning of the Civil War our records cease, 

 and the arrangements made are unknown.' 



1 Bishop Morton was very zealous on behalf of the poorer members of his flock, and it was probably due 

 to him that the richer sort agreed to fence the allotments of the poor, who were also to receive a large piece 

 of ground for their swine and geese, and be exempt from all common and public taxes. 



1 For details of the above account of the Middridge Inclosure see the records of the Dur. Ct. of Chan, 

 (now at the P.R.O.) and the Decrees, Orders, and Depositions of the National Ct. of the Exch. under the 

 various > ears referred to. 



239 



