SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



Chester between the years 1282 and 1300, in the minority of the heir, when 

 out of 



three hundred and fifty acres of common pasture . . . namely common for all the (aforesaid) 

 tenants, Sir John Byron and Sir John de Longford (keepers of those lands), have inclosed to 

 themselves one hundred acres of land ... at the time when Sir Thomas Grelle was last in 

 keeping ... of the lord the King.^'* 



' And their one hundred acres,' the writer goes on to say — 



they have tilled as arable land, and these are now held by tenants of Nicholas de Longford 

 and Richard de Byron "' — by the aforesaid disseisin. And one and the same Sir John de 

 Byron and the lady Joan de Longford have lately inclosed to themselves thirty-six acres of 

 land, and these acres they have tilled as arable land. And be it also known that the lord 

 can approve to himself the aforesaid one hundred and thirty-six acres, and inclose these at 

 his pleasure ; saving sufficient pasture to all the aforesaid commoners. . . . 



In the extent of these lands two years later, in 1322, the lord is mentioned as 

 having '136 acres pastures there ... to wit (the lands) which John de 

 Byron and John de Longford and John de Longton have tilled and inclosed.' ^'^^ 

 The same thing took place at Cuerdley in the same lordship, where various 

 ' pastures ' — ' in which the tenants . . . were wont to claim common of 

 pasture ' were ' assarted and farmed ' to other tenants."' It seems clear from 

 these examples that the desire to increase income from farms and assarts was 

 the origin of the seizure of common lands, and that such disseisins for turning 

 pasture to tillage were already taking place up and down the county in the 

 end of the thirteenth century."' 



The first English sovereign who made a royal progress in the county 

 (as distinguished from a hurried passage through its boundaries) was Henry 

 of Richmond, who, in visiting his mother and her husband the earl of 

 Derby at Lathom in 1495, Passed through the towns of Warrington and 

 Manchester."' The Tudors were, indeed, the greatest patrons and saviours 

 of the county, and from the time of Henry VIII onwards the county 

 received grace and encouragement from the crown.^"" The prosperous villein 

 of an earlier period became the small copyholder or socage tenant of the 

 fifteenth century, and developed into the sturdy yeoman of Tudor times, 

 when copyholders and tenants at will alike united to resist the encroachments 

 of landlords who sought by every possible means to resume ancient land 

 grants. The whole question came to a head in the Inquisition of 151 y,^^^ 



'" Mamecestre (Chet. Soc), ii, 326, 327. "' Ibid. 327. 



"' Ibid. 389. '" Ibid. 388. 



™ Mr. Leadam (' Inq. of 1 5 1 7 ') suggests that * the enclosure of arable land was a movement contemporary 

 with that of conversion to pasture,' and supports his theory with a quotation from Fitzherbert's Surveying, where 

 lords are advised to 'enclose their lands for tillage as well as pasture.' Prof. Gay disputes Mr. Leadam's 

 theory, but without much justification. The lands at Manchester were inclosed for tillage. A reconciliation 

 of both theories seems to be provided by Hale's Discourse of the Commonweal, where he suggests that land was first 

 inclosed apparently for tillage and afterwards turned to pasture when inclosing had begun to escape 

 notice ; Discourse, 50. Prof. Gay's argument is given In a paper read before the Roy. Hist. Soc. and printed 

 in their Trans. (New Ser.), xiv, 243. 



"' Annals of the Lords of Warrington (Chet. Soc), pt. ii, 254. 



'*' The disforesting of Pendle, Trawden, Rossendale, and Accrington was due to Hen. VII, the lands 

 being let at nominal rents by copy of court roll. Queen Elizabeth sanctioned inclosures of waste within 

 the demesne manors of the honour of Clitheroe. 



The forests of Wyresdale and Bleasdale were let at low rents to tenants — nominally at will, but soon 

 subject to tenant right. 



"' Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. (New. Ser.), vi and xiv. 



287 



