SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



of 1536, since 'in the North partes much of the relef of the comyns was 

 by sucor of Abbeys.'"* They 'lent money to gentlemen, took charge of 

 evidence and moneys, were a convenience in disposing of younger sons and 

 m educating daughters, and were great maintainers of sea walls, highways 

 and bridges.' '" With their dissolution arose a prominent form of dispute 

 between the king's farmer or grantee of their freshly-distributed lands and 

 the local inhabitants, who had enjoyed centuries of privilege both of pasture 

 and turbary under the abbot's tenure. 



In 1 543—4 the king appointed a commission to inquire into these 

 matters, and particularly into the disputes in connexion with the lately 

 dissolved monastery of Furness. At Low Furness the commissioners found 

 that about four hundred tenants of the late abbey had common of turbary 

 and pasture for their oxen and horses on Angerton Moss. The abbot had 

 formerly 16 acres of the moss, which since the abbey's suppression had been 

 let to farm. Certain of the late abbot's tenants were allowed to inclose 

 30 acres of the moss, which they converted to arable and meadow land, were 

 allowed to build houses there, and paid a rent of 33J. \d. yearly for the same, 

 which they subsequently paid to the king. On another part certain tenants 

 had improved 50 acres from the waste and occupied it at a rent of 52J. 2^., 

 afterwards paid to the king. One Barker, however, had inclosed 20 acres, 

 which before the Dissolution was used as common pasture for the tenants' 

 oxen and horses, for the which 20 acres the said Barker paid no rent and 

 had no title to such possession. The said 20 acres were worth about \d. 

 an acre, and the sixteen turbary acres would let for zd. per acre. The rest 

 of the moss was so full of water that it was useless for pasture, and the water 

 threatened the king'a tenants' turbary there unless it was drained."* 



Under the popularly sympathetic but weak policy of Protector Somerset 

 the disputes between tenants and landlords increased rather than diminished 

 in Lancashire. The old undecided claims as to common of turbary were 

 resumed not merely at Penwortham, but also at Hindley and AspuU, at West- 

 houghton, Burnley, Colne, Ightenhill,"' and Longton Moss."' Other similar 

 disputes were carried on also at Claydon, Guerdon, and Turton,"' Deane 

 Moor near Bolton,^^" and at Stalmine Moss.'" In 1549 the tenants of the 

 earl of Derby were fighting for their rights over Ashworth and Bury Com- 

 mon,"' and there were lawsuits for trespass on common of turbary at Prest- 

 wich and at Tonge Moor.''* Disturbances of pasture took place at Brokhurst 

 Manor, at Lowton Waste, and at Newton."* In 1550 there were disturbances 

 of common at Chatburn."' 



Under Philip and Mary there was little abatement. In 1553-4 disputes 

 occurred at Ribby lordship near Kirkham,"' and at Haslingden,"' where the 

 tenants were the plaintiffs. In the same year we get protests against the 

 encroachments on the common of Gressingham Manor,"' and at Tottington 



"* Aske's Statement, printed in Engl. Hist. Rev. v, 345, 558. 



'" Ibid, quoted by Prof. Gay, Tram. Roy. Hist. Soc. (New Ser.), xviii, 198, note 6. 



"" Duchy of Lane. Dep. xlviii, R. 5. 



'" Ibid. Plead, xxiii, B. 14 (z Edw. VI). »" Ibid. F. 6 (z Edw. VI) 



^" Ibid, xxiv, K. 4 (z Edw. VI). «» Ibid. R. 4 (2 Edw. VI). 



"' Ibid. S. 13 (2 Edw. VI). »» Ibid. Dep. liv, H. z. 



'^ Ibid. Plead, xxii, C. 5 (3 Edw. VI). '" Ibid, xxiv, R. 4. 



'^» Ibid, xxvi, K. 4. »» Ibid, xxxiii, B. 2. 



^ Ibid, xxxiv, H. 17. »8 Ibid, xxxiv, T. 4. 



2 289 27 



