PART II: 1485-1660
SECTION I
1. Villeinage in the Reign of Elizabeth, 1561—2. Customs of the Manor of High Furness, 1576—3. Petition in Chancery for Restoration to a Copyhold, c. 1550—4. Petition in Chancery for Protection against Breach of Manorial Customs, 1568—5. Lease of the Manor of Ablode to a Farmer, 1516—6. Lease of the Manor of South Newton to a Farmer, 1568—7. The Agrarian Programme of the Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536—8. The Demands of the Rebels led by Ket, 1549—9. Petition to Court of Requests from Tenants Ruined by Transference of a Monastic Estate to lay hands, 1553—10. Petition to Court of Requests to stay Proceedings against Tenants pending the hearing of their Case by the Council of the North, 1576—11. Petition from Freeholders of Wootton Basset for Restoration of Rights of Common, temp. Charles I.—12. Petition to Crown of Copyholders of North Wheatley, 1629—13. An Act Avoiding Pulling Down of Towns, 1515—14. The Commission of Inquiry Touching Enclosures, 1517—15. An Act Concerning Farms and Sheep, 1533-4—16. Intervention of Privy Council under Somerset to Protect Tenants, 1549—17. An Act for the Maintenance of Husbandry and Tillage, 1597-8—18. Speech in House of Commons on Enclosures, 1597—19. Speeches in House of Commons on Enclosures, 1601—20. Return to Privy Council of Enclosers furnished by Justices of Lincolnshire, 1637—21. Complaint of Laud's Action on the Commission for Depopulation, 1641.
The agrarian changes which attracted attention from the latter part of the fifteenth century to the accession of Elizabeth, and again, to a less degree, at intervals between 1558 and 1660, are a watershed in economic history, separating mediæval from modern England as decisively as did, in other departments of national life, the Reformation and the Tudor monarchy. For the controversial questions surrounding their causes and consequences we must refer the student to the list of books given below. All that can be attempted here is to notice the special points upon which the following documents throw light.
In arranging the documents in this section it seemed best not to group them in strict chronological order, but to place together those relating to similar aspects of the subject. Documents 1 to 6 illustrate the status and tenure of different classes of landholders. By the beginning of the sixteenth century personal villeinage has almost disappeared; only one document therefore (No. 1) is given to it. Nor has it seemed necessary to print documents referring specially to the freeholders who, compared with other classes of tenants, were little affected by the agrarian changes. On the other hand, the position of the customary tenants, and of the lessees who farmed manorial demesnes, raises important questions. Documents 2 to 4 illustrate manorial customs and the way in which cases between lords and copyholders turned upon them (Nos 3 and 4). Without entering into controversial questions with regard to copyhold tenure one may say (a) that it is customary or villein tenure to which the courts from the beginning of the fifteenth century, first the court of Chancery—before which both these cases come—and then the Common Law courts, have given protection, (b) that what the Courts do is to enforce manorial customs, which vary from place to place. It is, therefore, essential for a tenant who wants, e.g., to be protected against eviction (No. 3), or against loss of profitable rights (No. 4) to show that the lord is committing a breach of the custom. Hence the dispute (No. 3) as to whether the land at issue is customary land or part of the lord's demesnes. If it is the former the tenants are likely to be protected by the Courts: if it is the latter, they are not. The position of the capitalist farmer, who played so large a part in the rural economy of the sixteenth century, is illustrated by documents 5 and 6. No. 5 is specially interesting as showing how the earlier practice of dividing up the demesne lands among numerous small tenants was replaced by that of leasing them in a block to one large farmer. Documents 7 to 12 illustrate certain points which have already been mentioned, e.g., the importance of manorial customs (Nos. 8, 10 and 12). But their peculiar interest consists in the light which they throw on the grievances of the peasants. They suffer from enclosing (Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11), from excessive fines (Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12), and from rack renting (Nos. 8, 9, 12). They are gravely prejudiced by the land speculation following the dissolution of the monasteries (No. 9). They are too poor and too easily intimidated to get redress even when they have a good case (Nos. 10, 11, 12). The justices who ought to administer the acts against depopulation depopulate themselves (No. 8). The peasants' main resource is the Crown and its Prerogative Courts (Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12). Surely the government will protect men who make good soldiers and pay taxes (No. 12)! Occasionally, however, they have some hope of Parliament, e.g., in 1536, when the royal officials are in bad odour in the North (No. 7), and under Charles I (No. 11). The exact date of this last document is uncertain. May it not be 1640-1, when the Long Parliament was going to restore all good customs?
Documents 13 to 21 illustrate the policy of the government towards the agrarian problem. The government tried to stop depopulation partly for financial and military reasons, partly through a genuine dislike of economic oppression. Its main instruments were four, namely:—(a) Statutes (Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, and 19). Between 1489 and 1597 11 Acts were passed which had as their object the prevention of depopulation, viz., 4 Hen. VII, c. 19, 6 Hen. VIII, c. 5, 7 Hen. VIII, c. 1, 25 Hen. VIII, c. 13, 27 Hen. VIII, c. 22, 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 5, 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, c. 2, 5 Eliz. c. 2, 31 Eliz. c. 7, 39 Eliz. c. 1, 39 Eliz. c. 2,. All these were repealed by 21 James I, c. 25, except the last, which was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1863. (For a summary of these Acts see Slater, The English Peasantry and of the Enclosure Common Fields, App. D.) (b) Royal Commissions. The first (No. 14) was appointed in 1517: 6 others followed, in 1548, 1566, 1607, 1632, 1635, and 1636 (No. 21). (c) Intervention by the Privy Council (Nos. 16 and 20). (d) The Prerogative Courts; viz., the Court of Requests (Nos. 9 and 10), the Court of Star Chamber (No. 21), the Council of the North (No. 10), and the Council of Wales (Acts of the Privy Council, New Series, Vol. XXX, pp. 36-7). How far their intervention was successful is an open question, for a discussion of which reference must be made to the books mentioned below.
AUTHORITIES
The more accessible of the modern writers dealing with agrarian conditions from 1485-1660 are:—Cunningham, English Industry and Commerce, Early and Middle Ages, and ibid., Modern Times, Part I; Ashley, Economic History, Vol. I, Part II; Nasse, The Land Community of the Middle Ages; Gonner, Common Land and Inclosure; Page, The End of Villeinage in England; Hasbach, The English Agricultural Labourer; Prothero, Pioneers and Progress of English Agriculture, and A History of English Farming; Johnson, The Disappearance of the Small Landowner; Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century; Russell, Ket's Rebellion in Norfolk; Leadam, The Domesday of Inclosures, and in Trans. R.H.S. New Series, Vol. VI; Gay, in Trans. R.H.S., New Series, Vols. XIV and XVIII, and in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XVIII; Leonard, Trans. R.H.S., New Series, Vol. XIX; Savine in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XIX. A useful summary of the principle Statutes against Depopulation is given by Slater, The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of the Common Fields, App. D.