A HISTORY OF YORKSHIRE 



entirely illegal. But evidence was taken two years later in a much more serious case of inclosing 

 against the wishes of the tenants having common rights. The neighbourhood of Settrmgton was 

 again the scene of the alleged outrage ; James Hepplethwaite was the offender, and the '"habitants of 

 Norton were the accusers. The evidence was clear and pertinent ; one witness deposed that he had 

 known the townfields of Norton for fifty years and that the tenants had ' taken the prohts thereof 

 by eating the grass thereof with their cattle' from time immemorial. The highway from Norton lay 

 through a part of the common called the Outgang. One house had already, in infringement of their 

 rights, been built there, but Hepplethwaite had inclosed a piece of the highway within the last year 

 and erected the framework for a second house. He had also annexed one close in the field on the 

 south of Norton, three parcels of ground in the west field adjoining Norton Carr, and a part of 

 Norton Carr itself, where the tenants had always had common all the year, and pasturage when the 

 land was not sown with corn. For sixteen years after the dissolution of the monastery of Old 

 Malton, the bailiff of the Buckrose wapentake had held a court in Norton every three weeks, but 

 for the last three years Henry Hepplethwaite, presumably the brother of James, had usurped this 

 power, and had forced even the queen's tenants to appear to answer for their misdemeanours at his 

 newly instituted court. The evidence of one witness gives an amusing example of the collusion 

 between the two relations. The deponent was fined 5^. 4^. for some trivial offence, but was 

 allowed to work out the fine by leading stones for James Hepplethwaite.* 



An interesting example of an unusual method of settling a disputed inclosure question is given 

 incidentally when the freeholders of Eccleshall Manor sued Sir Nicholas Strelley concerning their 

 common rights on Nether Moor, Hartle Moor, and Rawhill. Sir Nicholas had refused to fence and 

 inclose, but fined the freeholders if their cattle strayed on to the common, which was so near 

 their houses that it was impossible to prevent the trespass. They urged also that until eighteen 

 years ago they had had pasturage rights on the said common. Some forty years before Sir Nicholas 

 had commanded his tenants to ditch and inclose two parcels of ground called Rawhill and Hartle- 

 grove ; the freeholders had appealed to the Earl of Shrewsbury to protect them. His award was 

 that they should pay Sir Nicholas 8s. a year, and in case of failure he could inclose at 

 once.' 



James Ryder's view of the inclosure question is interesting as coming from a contemporary, 

 though his judgement is warped, for the chief object of his letter, written in 1588 to Lord Burghley, 

 is apparently to prove the superiority of the West Riding over the rest of Yorkshire, and the 

 imbecility and depravity of the citizens of York. Writing of the land round Halifax, he 

 says : — 



The people have great lybertie to enclose and buyld upon the wastes about their towen by reson 

 they do for the more parte appertaine to the Crowen, and all our lawes and statutes of Inglande favor 

 Inclosurcs as a comon comoditie, and condemne unimployed soyles as a cancar to the comonwelth. In 

 other partes of the countrie to maintayne the poorer sort In their Wellness, they hold this use, if any 

 man pocessed of large wasts wolde Improve thoughe not so much as by lawe he may forthwith the 

 Richer sort (who indeed suck out the swet of thes comons from the poore) will send In all the poor 

 that inhabyt ner to make outcries to the magistrate that they are undon and thes people for the more 

 parte have not anythinge to put out of their doores that can lyve upon thes wastes, so are the symple 

 made Instruments to keepe themselves under and unable to lyve of themselves so that this dyfFerent 

 effect is most woorthie the notinge, No parte of the countrie yealdeth so many rich men as the most 

 barren, no parte so many poor as the most fertile.* 



The view that the possession of common rights tended to pauperize was not popular. As 

 early as 1549 the commons of York put in a petition to the Lord Mayor's Court, 'that there be 

 no newe inclosers mayd nor had abowte this citie from Michelmes to the Lady day but that the 

 comon may have their comon and areyse in the same from Michelmes to the lady day in Lent as 

 they have had here before and ought of right to have." But James Ryder gives an amusing 

 account of the effects of the possession of these rights on the character of the people of York. 



For their artificers they ar hardly to be mached In being so many, so unskillfull and so dear, 

 many of thes keepe, some one mylke kow som two, which In somer lyve upon their comons adjoyn- 

 inge to the cytty and in wynter upon hay at the tyme of year brought to their doores to be solde. In 

 resonable sort this cowe eatith awaie their Industrie by whose defect unskillfuUness Increasse for this 

 which the prentise bringe In the provition of many howsholdes whose maisters card and drynk for 

 the more parte of the daie, greate prehemynence appertaine to thes mylkh earing bists for by theii 

 costom In comyng home from their pasture they use to take the wall of such as they meet yea of my 

 Ld : maior hymself if the sword bearer be not all the stouter man so that from hence this northern 

 adage is rysen, take hym for a uU man that dare take the vpall of a prentise in london of a skoller in 

 Oxforde or of a cowe in Yorke.' 



* Exch. Dep. Yorks. Mich. 26 & 27 Eliz. no. 32. 

 » Ibid. Mich. 27 & 28 Eliz. no. 



27 

 ' York Munic. Rec. 



xix, fol. 86, 



29. 

 Sept. 



5+9- 



478 



• Lansd. MS. 1 19, 8, fol. 1 19. 

 'Lansd. MS. 119, 8, fol. 121. 



