- Email: [email protected]
The black death in county Durham
The Black Death in County Durham
\$‘riting cler Park Death places
Richard
some
understandably of the
after
emotive Cistercian
in Lincolnshire
the event, terms,
monastery claimed
and
in
the chroniof Louth
that the Black
of 1349 was so severe that in some as many as 80% of the population
were killed
Lomas
time
(Venables
1891:38).
Little
more
than 100 miles further north, a monk writing in the cathedral priory of Durham did not mention the catastrophe, even though two-thirds (fifty-five out of eighty-three) members of his house had perished (Raine 1839: 137-42).’ This sort of inconsistency
other parts of England. Following this is a consideration of the length of time over which the plague continued to have an adverse effect on the level of
and uncertainty has been the hallmark of our knowledge of the event ever since. It is, therefore, in the hope of increasing the precision of our understanding, if only in small measure, that this article sets out to explore what happened in one county in England. Immediately, it must be said that aim is to some extent pretentious and ambitious in that the discussion and the conclusions are based almost exclusively on evidence relatmore than twenty-eight ing to no townships.2 In fairness, however, they were well scattered across the central and eastern parts of the county, and in fact constituted a good cross-section of lowland settlements between the River Tyne and the River Tees. All of them belonged to Durham cathedral priory, but,yersiniapestis being blind to ownership, this is a fact of almost no signifi-
population and when a recovery began. All the evidence relates to properties belonging to the cathedral priory of Durham and is largely of an economic nature and therefore indirect and circumstantial. The exceptions are five short parchment rolls on which the monks recorded the names of their tenants who died in 1349, and it is the existence of this direct evidence that has made this study of special interest.
cance. iVlore specifically, this article will attempt to answer the two broad groups of questions always asked about the plague. The first is about initial impact in 1349: how many people died? Ft’hat percentage of the population did this represent? Tlrhat was the immediate reaction of the survivors and of the owners of the property they occupied? In
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it attempts to estimate the number of deaths inpercentage terms which Count_vDurham may have experienced in 1349 during the first outbreak of the plague and to compare this with what happened in
Journal of hledieval 0304-4181/89/$3.50
History- 15 (1989) 127-140 0 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.\..
[Nol-th-Holland)
127
considering
thcsc
qurstions
though
small
quality,
is available
and
to make
precise
and
The cerned
second group with a fleriod
after
direct
in cluantit>definite
clidence,
impcrfcct possif,le
prior’s in
fairl>-
answws.
ant,
of questions of‘ uncertain
1349: cvere there
sufxequent
is conlength outbreaks
of plagw, and what eITvct did the\. llavc? \Vhen did the population cease tc; shrink and perhafx flegin to grw1’ .A\ncl 110~ did the obser\2hle cliariges in social structuw and economic performance relate to thcsc e\-ents? Here. the e\iclence is much grcatcr in cluantitv and cfuality; f,ut because of its indirect nature it cannot bc used \\ith mmplctc conviction. The plague. ~2ugrzn pstilenricl as it came to f)e called in the priory’s records, was lxxsent in Count), Durham in the summer of‘ 1349. In the afxence of descripti\.c record it is not possible to fx certain how it arri\.cd. Perhaps it \vns I,>- ship through such ports as Hartlepool and KeLvcastle. Alternativcl>., it could 1lal.e been b\- road from the south, crossiyy the Ri\.er Tees b)- lvell-used routes such
as the salters’
filturc
road
North Road near Darlington. \vtl arc on firnier ground ~vlien
considering
the
cfhts
of the
\ve OIVC f~rincipally iiicnt
rolls
prior),‘:, under
estate
t11e>
recorded
year
128
tfir
ratfier
nanic’s
hut most - that
the
that
portion
of‘:hr
~1101~‘
and the tcr-
of the
custoniar\
inf‘ormation
likcl?, it ~vaa rlicitrd. of inquests,
summer
of tlic
the outf)reak.
is, the court
in spring,
This prcli-
mnna,g:rr~
of the f,ursar
tlic
asscrnf,lcd
f~lague. small
n\.o-thirds
who died during
f,l>- t,). nicans court
(or
to afx)ut
the control
tenants
to tlircc
Lvliicli
011
amounting
stated;
or the
Great
Happil!,,
rar)
at Stockton,
in the
hcfd three and autumn
HOM is
not
possifialmotc
times a in the
manor
houses,
to Lvhich all custom-
ary tenants owed suit. Since it ~vas at these meetings, or turns, that all changes of tcnarising
from
\vc‘rc‘ approvc‘d Ilaw
hccn
fill- this otlirr
and
ivhate\w circumstance, recorded, tflw ~\oulcl
tllc ofn.ious
sort
rolls,
of enquiry. ont
and f)rofxr In
a duplicate
occasions
addition. of tfic
t\vo other,
fia\.e sur\-ivcd
on \3 liich the names of‘ dead fi-cc tenants arc rvcordcd. VTnfi)rtunatcl~., hotI arp \‘cr>- fx~clf~~ danlaged t,y danlp. i ‘I‘lic \xluc of this widvncc is greatl!- cnIlanced tx the csistcncc of the f,ursar’s rcntal fi)r the financial ! car 1347-8. The f)urpox of‘ this class 01‘ document, \\-liich was connI~ilecl annualI). \\xs to f;icilitatc the colfcction
of‘renth,
and to mat)lts
tlic bursar
to
tllv mtcnt to \\.hicfl IIC hatf fxwi able to discharge liis cfut) In fi)rni tfiv? consisted of’. untfrr to~vnafiip licaclings. lists of tenants, wliat ~~icfi ficfd. and wflat rent 11~ or slit 01~~ccf. ‘l‘lir!- i\‘c’rc’ l~rq~;~rccl nt~atl!~ and lcgihf) twfi)rc rent collection t KTgan, and N~CI‘Ccorrc‘ctccl as Illort’ up-todate facts came to light. and annotated to indicate \vfictlicr rents (in almost all casts kno\\- f)rvciscl>-
olved
twice-\-earl!.,
Illkj
had
at \\‘hitsun
and _\lartin-
full\ lnid. It would set’m, therehe, a straightfi)r\vard task to compare tfic t\vo sets of lists, and thcrch). to disco\.et f~cn
the nunlher of‘ plague deaths in both aggrcgate and percmtaq~ tcw1is. Such a possihilit). ~tould sc’c’ni rat1ic.r too good to Ix true: and indeed it is, altllough the cfcficicncics and discrcpancics (;ftflc c\.idence are not so great a5 significant]) to rlndtmnine the conclusions arising fixxll it. \\%at arc the inadccfuacicx1’ First is the afv scncc from thr post-mortem records wfating to custoniar). truants of tlirce important mw~t)ers 01‘ tflc vstatc: tlit: tcwnshifx of‘
Kirk Bewley. passed
Merrington, This by
raises
the
Ferryhill
and
doubts:
were
plague;
or,
Cowpen
Taken
they
to remove
as seems
bymore
accurate
together,
the above
any chance
factors
of reaching
combine absolutel)
conclusions.
likely, was there a failure to note, or subsequent loss of the record of, the deaths that
Allowing for its defects, what does the evidence indicate? The answer, in brief, is
did occur?
a severe situation. The number of tenants who died in the twenty-eight townships in
tenants
References
in those
to the deaths
townships
would
of free seem
to
indicate the latter. Also missing, this time from the rental, are all but three of the very important tenements known as bondlands, of which there nine among 117 distributed lvere is townships.’ Tl le reason for their absence that their rent was entirely in the form of labour service, except for certain customar) rents in cash and kind owed to the terrar. The onl)- bondlands mentioned in the rental were two in Monkton and one in h1onk Hesleden, which had been leased. Finally, the loss of the 1348-9 rental, and the illegibility through damp damage of much of two of the inquest documents relating to free tenants, are added problems. Because of all this, and no doubt because of scribal error, induced perhaps by the chaos and misery of the time, the names of thirty-seven tenants recorded in the postmortem documents do not occur in the 1347-8 rental. In a number of cases the tenant was present, but under another name. For example, the tenant of a sixteen-acre holding in Monk \Yearmouth was known as Alice daughter of Ralph in 1347, but as Alice Rose in 1349. Likewise, Rqbert of \\:ardley, holding in Over Heworth in 1347, was known in death as Robert the reeve. Several other examples could be produced, although less confidently; in the end, however, it must he allowed that a number of changes of tenant would have occurred in the normal way between 1347 and 1349.
1349 totalled
362; the number
of tenants
in
the same townships in 1347 kvas, on best estimate, 718. Thus, the death rate was slightly over 50%. Almost inevitably, the distribution was not uniform. In percentage terms deaths ranged from 21% at nlonkton to 78% at Jarrow. As if to highlight the capthese two riciousness of the disease, townships were physically contiguous and historically associated. A similar gap is also another pair of close apparent in neighhours, Over and Nether He\vorth, where 36% and 72% respecti\rellof the tenants died. In contrast, and more logically, deaths in two other adjacent townships, Jt’olviston and Billingham, were 47% and Overall, holvever, the 45% respectively. shade is nearer to black than to Mhite, lvith sixteen of the townships having a tenant death rate in excess of 50%. Some regional variation is also discernible. In the four townships near the mouth of the River \Vear - Southwick, Fulwell and nlonk \t’earmouth - the average death rate was 60%, with 56% at Fullvell being the lowest incidence. In contrast, further up the \l:ear valley near Durham, another group of townships - East and I1Test Rainton, illoorsley, and North and South Pittington - had an average death rate of 43%, and in only one place, North Pittington, did more than half the tenants die. These changes are not explicable, particularly as all twentyeight settlements were in lowland parts of
129
the county nest to, or \.ery ri\.ers (Tyne, \\‘car, Tees), important tributaries. Explaining the spread not
be
so
difficult.
near, its majoi or one of theit
helokv of the plague
Shreb3hur).
that the o\rerland mox.ement Mould 1iaL.e been severcl~.
IXI)~
has argued of the plague hampered, 01
c\.cn halted, by the concentration ofpopulation in nucleated settlements separated tj) estcnsi\.e tracts of land dcwid of‘ outlJ,ing fa r iii s . “ivhich i$.ould lla\~e scr\,ed as links in the train of transmission of rat-plague fhm one \-illa,qe concentration of house rats to another” (1970:24). In fact, the settlement pattern of lowland Durham ~vas precisel!. that \vhicll Shre\vsbur)said did not obtain: large numbers of discrete farms occup)ring parts of‘ the tracts of moorland that separated the older nucleated \.illages. One csa111p1c. Lvliich includes t L\‘O of‘ the townships in his stud).. will illustrate this. Ch the main road to Sunderland, about sc\~rn miles from Durham, la>- the large and inlportant episcopal tox\nship of HoughtonIc-Spring. Bctlveen these tivo places ~vcre not oiil\~ three nucleated settlcmcnts Gilcsgate horougli and the villages of East Kainton and \\‘est Rainton - hut also fi\.c farms: High Grange and Low Grange, helonging to Kcpirr Hospital. a IlCl Ra\,ensflatt, Rloor House and Rainton Llanor. \vhicli wvc prior)- properties. As a result,
the distance
het\\,een
an!.
tkvo
settlc-
nlents ~t’as less than a mile. Thus. although the population of Count) Durham at this time vxs almost ccrtainl:, small in total. it mu distributed through a large number of small medium-sized, and hut close11 and not concentrated spaced, settlenlcnts, in large villages. In the end, l~owww, perhaps the most
130
important Rainton Over
f&t is that only two places - East and Alonkton - had a death rate
30%, Heworth,
and
in a mere Hcdworth
three and
others
\l’est
-
Rain-
ton - ~vas it bet\j,een 30% and 40”/0. In COIItrast, seven tocvnships - Harton, South Shields. hloorsle),. South Pittington, hllonk Hcsleden, Billingham and \Yolviston - had death rates het\veen 40% and 49”/0, kvhilc in another eight ~ \\‘illin,gton, \\‘rstoe. Southivick, Ful\\.ell, Newxon Bewlex-. i\).cliflk. \\‘esterton and Burdon - hct\vecn 30% and 59% died. and in eight morr \Vallsend, Nether Hexvorth, ,Jarro\v. hlonk \Vearmouth, Dalton le Dale. North Pittington, Nebvton Kctton and hliddlestonc ~ deaths exceeded 60%. Here it must be stressed that the numbers under discussion were of tenants, not total population. \\‘ould the percentages Ilaw ~KTII different if ex-idence fbr the population as a \vhole had hccn a\~ailahlc? Prohabl\ not: after all, \vll\. should the disease have or \vhy should the\. smgled out tenants, lia\.e lxcii more \xlnerable than otlie;nlcmbers of their communities? \Vhat is certain is that there \\xs no se\ disci.irnination: of the 718 tenants 13 lvere women, of‘ L\-liom 52% died. that is. \.cr!. slightl!. and thcrcfbrc prohahl\. not aiqiificantlx more than fi)r the group 21s a kvhole. \\Iierc the figures could be nlisleading is in the ahence althou,qli it ma)- be suspected of children, that their inclusion l\.ould ha\,e raised rather than lowxvd the percentage. :I deatll rate of o\.cr 50% is lii,qli lq aii~. standard, but 110~ does it compare \\ith parts of‘ EnglandI’ It has been suggested that the a\.erage mortalit)on tllc bishop of \\‘incliester’s estate xvas about 66%. and fbr the t\vcnt) -t\\v manors he-
otllrl
\Vhat
was the immediate
response
to this
longing to Glastonbury abbey, 55% (Titow 1969:69-71). On the other hand, evidence
appalling
from the twelve
of the iVorcester-
of the rolls suggests
suggests
ings lost their tenant, that small discrepancy between
is, 53%. (The these and the
lower
is explained
shire
parish
age mortality that region,
townships
of Halesowen of 40%, for the
an aver-
and, also in the same seventeen townships
number
figures
of deaths3
The
evidence
that 419 of the 790 hold-
for the tenants
b;c
owned by the bishop of \l:orcester indicates 42% (Razi 198O:lOl; Dyer 1980:238). Al-
the fact that one holding.)
though v.ery close in average, these two groups of settlements differ considerably as regards range: in Halesowen, the highest and lowest figures were 57% and 33% respectively, a much narrower span than the 80% to 17% of the \\:orcester estate. In this \l:orcester was much nearer to the Durham experience than was Halesowen, which more closely resembled the Glastonbur) manors, where the range was from 69% to 33%. \\‘ide variation was equally the case elsewhere. At Cuxham, Oxfordshire, and at Calstock, Cornwall, between 60% and 70% of tenants are reckoned to have perished; and at Kibworth Harcourt, Leicestershire, and Oakington, Cambridgeshire, total deaths probably exceeded 70% (Harve) 1965: 135-6; Hatcher 1970: 105; Howell 1983: 16, 42; Page 1934:120-5). In contrast, the dead at Climsland, Cornwall, amounted to no more than 40%, while at Dr) Drayton, Cambridgeshire, the figure was even lower at 38% (Hatcher 1970: 105; Page
least 195, or 46%, of these vacated holdings had been relet. This can be asserted with confidence in view of the addition in the left-hand margin of the words terra cufita, meaning that the holding had been taken by a new tenant. Unfortunately, the documents recording tenants’ deaths, being undated (at least as they now exist), the length of time between the death of tenants and the entry of their successors cannot be determined. However, their appearance, and the variations in their form and wording, make it hard to believe that they were composed later than the spring or summer courts in 1350, and that therefore they do not show the situation obtaining ver) shortly after the catastrophe. To the 195 certainties ma)- be added a further ninety-four instances where, although the words terra cupta do not appear, the internal evidence clearly points to the holding being in the hands of a new tenant. In all, therefore, 289 tenements had been relet, a take-up rate of 69%. This is some
1934: 120-5). Ov:erall, however, it seems likely that deaths exceeded 50% more often than not, which suggests that the farming population suffered slightly more than monks and parish clergy, for whom a maximum death rate of 45% is postulated, and much more than the great landowners, of whom a mere 27% are said to have died Russell (Hollingworth 1969:221-6; 1948:215-22).
way below the figures of 82% and 91% respectively in Halesowen parish and in Kibworth Harcourt (Razi 1980: 110; Howell 1983: 42), and reinforces the idea of a high death rate in Durham. Also worth noting is that only forty-nine or 17% of the new tenants were identified as being of their predecessor’s immediate family (twenty-eight spouses, sixteen children, three siblings and
some tenants had more than By the time of the inquests at
131
tmm paret~tsj, \vliich ina!- imp]>- that a h-g-c number of entire families had hccn kviped out. Almost incvitab]>., ied I~etcvccn one place
the take-up rate varand another. Thus,
at Nether Hewmth, t\t.clve of the tllirtccn holdings \xcatcd had been rclct, \\hcrms in tlcighhouring O\.er Hmvortll only one in eight. SitnilarlJ-,
the fi,qurc‘ MXS at North Pit-
titigtoti thirteen out of‘ the ciglitccti ltolctit~gs afC.xted had hecn rctcnantcd, hut at South Pittington the figuws kvere li)ur out of‘ t\vetit).-enc. In addition to hcts ahut tltc death of‘ tenants and the reletting of‘ their holdings, tlir post-tnortctn ctocutnentb contain itihrtnation about other matters. In particular. 143 entries include details of tlic state of‘ cultivation on the holding and/or an in\.entar!. of‘so~nc’ or all of its stock. Such details a~ rarcl!. included in tnanorial court rc’cords of‘ this date, and are certainI?- esccptional in thy prior!-‘5 lialtiiot~ court rolls. C:otiscclumtl~-, an analysis of tltcnl ma) 1~ jttstiGal)l>~ included, ~vcn though it trln!. not 1~ strictl! t.clc.~.atit to tlir main matter of‘ this article. Perhaps tlic most obvious I‘eaturc. is the wriation in tlic percentqc of‘ arable land under crops. In tliirteen of‘ tlir 130 wtries \vliere tlic figures can 1x tmd, otil\- oticthird of‘ the land ~t’as sobn, \vliile in t\vo others all of it \vas under crol~5. Of‘ the rctnaindrr. sixty-se\,en (32”AJ) had half 01‘ their land so\vn, bvltile fort! -cigllt (37% ) had t\vo-thirds in LIW. Alost towashilx ;I]>par to IAll into one or otlicr categor) 1 but Hcd\vorth. \\.rstoe. South\vick. S(‘\.Cll LIonk \l’eartnoutl~, Ful\\-ell, Plonk Hcslrden and Billingllanl - had some tenements in both categories. C~onscclucntl~. it is not possible to cotnc to an utiatnt~iguous conclu-
sion as to the crop rotation s)‘stein in uhc. Xs regards the crops tl~cmscl\-cs, the picture is much grmvn, to tlic
less corhsecl. al\va)-s recorded sc’asc~ti of tlicit-
Four
field crops
\verc
in
pairs according smvitig: lvlieat and
occasionallv
and oats and peas. fi-cclucntl~~ clcas hlndi zlemu1i.s or (ie .semiue wm~li.~.
sari bed
refitrred
to
as
/Adi
harlty.. hiemdis;
In niost instances. qua1 nutiihers or acrc5 ol‘cacli pair ofgrains Lvere ,qro\\m, hut b.lierc tlic nuinhrs \vvrc L~IIC\~~II tlic lx~lan~~ IV;IS tiiostlv in fa\wur of‘ the winter ccrcals. ;hi~tnals f&ture l~rotiiitictitl~~. if‘utiv\wil~~. Alost important mvt’ tlir draught animals: 201 OXCII and 16.5 horses. ‘lht hot-xca constituted only 45% of‘ thy total lrnds sotne support to tlie rccctit argutiict-tt that thy north was pritiiaril\~ ox coutitr?. and that, at tltc tqintiiti~ of‘tlic fi)ut-tectitli ccntur\.. liorxs a~co~tit~d fi)r ahut 40% of‘ thv clraugltt animals o\mcd 1)~. tlit, lwasatitr~ ( Langdon 1986:203~3). Bcti)rc looking at the distribution pattern. it should hc notccl that. \\.llilc oscn fi)rtncd ati utidif~~rcntiatcd class, liotxs \vvtx distinguished 1)). the terms rqum and cf#!;fr/l.c. it 11as txvi asserted, ~121s ‘l‘hr h111cr, applied to tlic. superior cart horse, bvhilc tlic latter \\.as rescr\.ccl ti)r lower-grade animals used
in plougliing ant1 liarro\\.iti,g ( IJangdon 1086:86). Thr v\.idence hcrc will not hatthis intcrprctation: tliv same term was used to dtxritx~ all tlir 1~01-5~sin ;I to~vtisliip; and there is no cxatnple or hotli tt’rtiis IIcing uhtd to clifYcrctitiate t~etwwti tyIx4 of lior5t o~~nccl t,). an indi\-idital, or mittiiti a cotnmutiity. Tlit- leading f‘act atmut the chuglit atiimals is tlicir association \\,itli tlic latyyt (‘1’11~ di\riding line hct\vc.cn tenetncnts. tat-gcr and stnallrr holdings is of newshit)
artificial, smaller
but, because bondland,
appropriate ants,
it was the size of the
sixteen
on this estate).
eighty-eight
(62%)
acres is the most Of the 143 tenhad
holdings
of
priory’s
demesne
farm records indicates
the
foot plough as the most likely. The similar,
pattern
of harrow
but not identical.
ownership Ninety
was
harrows
sixteen or more acres, and fifty-five (38%) had tenements of smaller size. Of the larger
were recorded, since thirty-one
tenants, seventy-eight (89%) one draught animal, whereas
than one. Not surprisingly, fort).-right tenants owned both plough and harrovv, but a
had at least only thirteen
but only fift),-two owners, (60%) of them had more
mere three had a harrow only, with nineteen owning a plough harrow.
compared but not a
(24%) of the smaller tenants had either horse or ox. The association is further emphasized by the fact that, of the sixty-two tenants with both horse and ox, no less than fift)--eight or 94% were larger tenants. The view that the ox was preponderant in this area is given added support by the fact that of those tenants with both horses and oxen, 53% had more oxen than horses and 16% had equal numbers; only 3 1% had a majority of horses. LIoreover, of the twenty-two in this category, fourteen had larger holdings. which gives little encouragement to the opinion that horses were a feature of small farms (Langdom 1986:2024). Finally, the number of animals owned by individuals is as follows. 0n~ animal: eleven tenants; two animals: thirteen tenants; lhree animals: twenty tenants;,f&r animals: fifteen tenants;,fit’e animals: eleven tenants; six a?limals: nine tenants; sez’elzanimals: five ten-
The situation regarding carts was more complex. In all, sixty-five tenants between them had seventy-eight carts. Of this number, seventeen (22%) are described h) the word currus, while the other 78% appear as either cnrecta or carta, the two terms apparentl>- being synonymous. Although not absolutely certain, it seems likely that the Langdon has names were used, as suggested, to distinguish the larger. heavier cart from the smaller, lighter vehicle ( 1986: 142-53). Forty-five tenants, that is 31%, had plough, harrow and cart, and all but three of them held larger tenements. In addition to draught animals, eightyfive cows vverc owned by fifty-four tenants. The): were scattered in a seemingl?, haphazard fashion across the estate, and
ants; eight animnls: three tenants; nine animals: tW0 tenants; ten animals: one tenant; tu~ehe animals: one tenant.
only at \t:est Rainton does the evidence indicate a serious commitment to dairy farming. Similarly, fifty-four vvell-scattered ten-
The implements to lvhich these animals were harnessed also appear frequently in the inventories. Seventy-four ploughs were noted, ov2-ned by sixt),-nine tenants, that is, 48% of the total. Again, the large tenants were more prominent, sixty-four (73%) owning a plough, compared with onl). fiv,e smaller tenants. Not recorded was the type of plough, although the evidence of the
ants possessed between them 506 sheep, but only thirteen of them had more than nine animals, and there were only three flocks of substantial size: one of forty-five at Harton, another of sixty at nliddlestone, and a third of sixty-six at Dalton-le-Dale. Finall>-, and rather surprisingly, only twenty-seven tenants were credited with owning that most useful of animals, the pig.
133
Finally,
in
113 cases
the
inventor)-
cludes household utensils. Three lar Lvere \:ery common: pitchers
in-
in particu(011~ ~2~7):
120 in ninety-nine houses: bow& (Jnfelln): ninety in eighty-three houses; and chests (cistn):
fifty-nine
tioned,
but less frequently,
bum) ~ boxes
in fifty houses. (nrchn),
Also
\vere vats
posncts
men(@urn-
(~!~~en&un2).
trivets (trips) and cradles (czun) The basic impression conveyed by these in\v~tories is of an economy almost exclusi\-ely concerned kvith arable farming, and, Lvith a fe\v individual exceptions, ha\ring little interest in animals, other than those needed for draught purposes. Also elident is the une\‘en distribution of goods in man). places. The problem is to decide ho~v accuratelv the documents reflect the situation: the regularity and apparent fullness of the entries for places such as Harton and Southwick suggest that recording else\\-here ma). ha\.c been partial and slipshod. \\‘hat happened in the two generations after 1349, that is. in the fifty )-ears to the end of the century:’ There is, unfortunately. no direct evidence of the plague and its immediate effects in this period of the sort available for the disaster of 1349. Ho\ve\.er. there is extant in some quantit!. a \,nriet)- of c\.iclence which, if used cautiously, prm~ides a not unconvincing outline of bvliat occurred. The best starting point perhaps is the bursar’s rental of 1396-7, \vhich regrcttabl>, is the only complete example (except for that of the follo\ving ycarj to have sur\i\.ed for the period between the 1340s and 1495. \Vhcn set alongside that of 1347, it is readi]!. seen that there had been a substantial rccluction in the number of tenants from 7 18 to 409, that is, 43%. Ine\.itablJ.. the extent
134
of the decline
\Taried from place
to place.
In
East Rainton, for example, there was in fact no change, fourteen tenants being present in both years; while in South Shields the 1396 total
was
1347, thirty-three In contract,
only
three
compared
at Nekvton
less than with
Ketton,
that
of
thirt),-six.
where
there
had been elc\,en tenants in 1347, the entire township was leased to one man in 1396. Similarly, South Pittington \vas held by tkvo tenants at the end of the century, lvhereas in 1347 it had accommodated thirt),-one. Equally evident is the absence of change in the tenurial structure, except at South Shields (kvhich was a fishing Lrillage), hvhere the number of holdings had risen from thirty-three to forty-six. Everyhcre tenements \vere unlet. but the most significant change leas the ividespread and estensilre engrossing. Some tenants, of course, continued in the traditional mode lvith one holding onI>,; but at the other end of the spectrum lvere men like Thomas Egermond of Fulwell, \vlio \vas in possession of three cottages without land, f&r holdings of tlvelvc acres. one of sixteen acres, and one of t\z-enty-t\vo acres, all lvith tofts, for a total of eight).-six acres. cvhich \vas 45% of the tenant land of the tolz-nship. XIoreo\rer, as the halmote court rolls reveal. he continued to increase his stake. until by 1409 hc occupied ten tenements and 60% of all the arable land. This agglomeration did not prove permanent, how-ever, and it \vas broken up kvhen Egermond died in the late 1420s. Playing the land market in this fashion, \\hich resulted in many farms of more than fifty acres, and not a few in excess of 100 acres, \vas made easy b)- the adoption of a nelv fbrm of tenure. Previously, almost all
tenants
held their
ment
of an entry
tions
being
holdings line
for life after pay-
(gressuma),
the relatively
small
the excepnumbers
of
neifs, who held ad voluntatem domini. Starting in the late 136Os, but growing rapidly in the last decade way
of the century,
to the short
lease
these
of three,
forms
gave
six or nine
years, and here and there longer periods of entry fine. By up to thirty years, without 1430, the transition to leasehold tenure was virtually complete, and, except at the fishing village of South Shields, where it lingered for another generation, life tenure became an occasional oddity. In this the priory’s estate stood in contrast to that of the bishop of Durham, in whose townships copyhold tenure emerged as the dominant form in the fifteenth century. \Thy leasehold was adopted cannot be stated with complete confidence. Almost certainly, it would have been welcomed by many tenants, since it freed them from the not inconsiderable burden of the entry fine, as well as from a tenurial arrangement inimical to a freely operating land market. Equally, for the estate managers there may have been a perceived advantage. They, had long experience of the lease in letting corn mills and their right to the grain tithe of their appropriated parishes, and in the same years after 1390 they were putting all but a handful of their demesne farms into the hands of lessees. Consequently, they may have come to the conclusion that a single form of tenure, applied to all types of property, was a sensible managerial policy. In doing so, they would appear to have been part of a small minority of landowners and managers who saw leasehold tenure as the best answer to the problems they faced in the closing years of the fourteenth century
(Dyer
1984:26).
clusive point,
statements more
H owever, can
specifically
before be
made
directed
any
con-
on
this
research
is
required. The hint that the population was about 45% lower at the end of the century than it was just
before
the plague
of 1349 is given
some support by the figures for income derived from corn mills, as recorded in the bursar’s rolls. The bursar’s account townships in County Durham were served by a network of thirteen mills, to which all customary tenants, some small freeholders, and the tenants of certain of the priory’s gentry freeholders, owed suit, in most cases paying a multure of one measure in thirteen.’ The mills were never subject to direct management, but were leased for one to three years to millers, or to consortia that included a miller, and as a result their rents were close to true economic value. In 1347 the income from the mills came to E95 13s 4d, while in 1396 it amounted to 253 OS Od, that is, a drop of 45%. However, this evidence may be questioned in the light of the known tendency for landlords to become unwilling, or unable, to enforce suit of mill against their tenants, or to prevent independent mills coming into existence, with the result that mill rents and land rents fell out of line (Hatcher 1970: 176-7). Against this, it must be said that in Durham there is no evidence of upstart mills, and, more significantly, positive evidence in the priory’s halmote court records that the monks continued to exercise control over their tenant communities in this as in other matters. As an illustration, a cluster of entries for the years 1505 and 1506 may be cited, relating to Southwick mill, to which the tenants of Southwick,
135
outed suit. Fulw ell and hIonk \I’earmouth The miller ~vas accused of slvapping good I>)grain for had, and \vas also prosecuted
reasons for the steep decline after 1293 (Rainc incomc ccliii). ‘he truth of this claim
a Ful\~.ell
trated
tenant
fbr
thcfi.
On
thr
other
hy t\vo to\vnships
in their tithr 1839:ccxliiiis neatly
of about
illus-
equal
aizc
hand, the tenants of‘hlonk \Yearmouth and I:ul\~~ell had to he rcmindrd of their ohligation to grind their corn at South\vick, and
in this longed
oiic
6s 8d to 29 6s 8~1. txt\veen 1348 and 1396, kvherras at \Vooclham, which \vas di\.idecl between hvo gentr)- hmilica, the declinr in income \vas fi-om Xl 1 6s 8d to 23 6s 8d, that the decline conis. 7 1%. E‘urthernlorr. tinucd until, after 1426, the corn tithe \\.as said to IM\Y )-ielded nothing. quicr mu .~n~incr/ur: \\‘oodhm had bccomc the dvsrrtcd site it is toda!.. All this said, ho\\,c\.cr, in broad terms the collapse of tithe inconlr, like the f‘all in the \-alue of mills. mwst hc SCCII as rcflccting, altwit to an uncertain de,grw, a drop in the lcvcl of‘ population.
mcmhc-r
of‘ the
latter
comniunit)~
\vas
amcrced for not doing so. The onI>, cleviation from traditional practice \vas that the LISC of qucrns \vas permitted. provided a licence was bought from the lcsscc of the mill. Similar conclusions ina). Ix dra~2~ii from tllp evidence Durham, count tlic
also rolls.”
titlics
leased cash
relating
to the grain
appropriated
eight
recorded Rccausc
of some
his right but
mo\.cd,
apparently
bursar
to\\nships
ai-
collected
IJut in others
people,
for corn
of
Count\
in the bursar’s the
to local
sometimes
tithes
in
parishes
mostly
or malt.
l~apl~azardl~~,
fi)l
2nd
fi-on1 ont
f‘orni of mana~cmcnt to the other, valid comparisons arr difficult. The most LIIIcqui\~ocal c~.itlcncc is that from tllc parish of XyclifG, in the south-wntral area of the count).. In 1348, the right to the grain tithes of its ten townships was sold for cash amounting to C6Y 5s (Id.’ BJ. lY96, bvhen again the right to all the titllcs \~as sold fill cash, no more than UO 10s Od was realized. ‘l’hc dcclinc \vas thereforc 56% ~ significant]) q-eater than tlir fall iii the number of tenants, or the \xluc of the mills. On? ewplanation of this diff‘erence is that, unlike tenant holdings and mills, the prior) \~a!- of directing the farming policies of‘ the farmers of thr parish. Thr \\-ere Lvell alvarc of this, so much so l-120 ness
the). ofothcr
fi-om arahlc
136
Lverc
to
lords
farminq
put
fim4xrcl
to allmv
tenants
had no of‘most monks that
in
tlica Millingto retreat
as one of the fbur niajoi
parish. In A!-cliffc itself. lvhich Ixto the prior),, the \.aluc of the grain
tithes
fell 11). no mow
than
28%.
from
213
But can this tlen~oyxphic dcclinc Ix attriljutcd to recurring outl>reaks 01‘ plng~~c:’ ‘lIicrc~ is s,oni(~ c~idrnc~ to twcouragv tllat idPa, in particular thv record of‘tllt, changes 01 tenant in tlic halmotc court rolls. In that tllq.
rccorcl
Incnt purpose.
C~LISC of death
tliu
arc
Sc\.crtlIclcss,
n01mal
\ cars
cliang~s
time
ncithvr
of licriots,
Iwtu
of‘tcnanc~~
to time
not tllty
tui
tliirt\
occurrrd.
the numhcr
nor
lwrkct
rcvcal and hut
surged
pa!.-
fbr our
that hrt\ that
in
-li\,c fi_onI
to a lli,ghcr
le\.vl. The outstanding instance is thv t\\‘o wars 1YciS and 1370, v.hen a total of‘ 12’7 chug-S-es of‘tcnant took place, and since 1369 is rcckoncd to bc ;I plax~~c !.car nationall>~ the conclusion st’mis ohAnus. ‘I’hr bvhen recorded. drnw
income
second
1110st notat,1c
SC\ wit>--tlIrrc
tcnanc)~
) Cal‘ \vas changes
137’1. \\.ert
tlicrc is supportiiig c\.iof‘ tilt. figures for loss of from \vastc-d rents. that is,, rents that Here,
in
the
li)rin
were
unpaid
because
the
unlet, which were included at the end of the bursar’s
holdings
were
as an allowance annual
account.
priory
expanded
land by buying
the amount out a large
of customary number
of its
own small freehold
tenants,
In 1379 the figure was E27, but in the fol-
ing
quantities
lowing year it jumped to 243. Clearly, something serious had happened although it ma)
land. More significantly, the halmote court books clearly reveal that during the second
be rash to assert that it was an outbreak
quarter
of
considerable
of the century
of
demesne
the v~olatility of the
plague, particularly as 1379 is not known as plague year. Sharp increases in the number of lettings also occurred in 1375 (fifty-two), 1381 (fifty-six), 1385 (fifty-eight), 1389 (sixty) and 1398 (fifty-three), of which 1385 and 1398 were years when the plague is thought to have been rife. Finally, it must be noted that, although there is no surviving evidence for Durham, plague was recorded in the Norham (Northumberland) court rolls in 1362. This was the time of the socalled “children’s plague”, and there is no reason to be1iev.e that Norham was affected while Durham remained untouched. From such indirect evidence an)- conclusion must be inchoate. Nevertheless, the facts do suggest that, by the end of the fourteenth century, the population was a little, but not much, more than half of what it had been before 1349, and that periodic bouts of high mortality were a major contributory factor. If so, Durham was very clearly in
conglomerate holdings coalesced, and then continued in the same families over several generations. As a consequence ever) township, with the exception of the fishing village of South Shields, became dominated by a small group of well-endowed tenants, who between them held all, or virtually all, of the land. Gradually, these groups were formed into syndicates, each of whose members vvas responsible for an equal share of the global rent. As this static and artificial structure developed, so the number of tenants ceased to bear any necessary relation to the size of the population (Lomas: 1977). At the same time, the evidence of the halmote court books continues to be significant. In most years the number of changes of tenant was between twenty-five and fifty, with an average of forty-four for the eightynine years for which evidence has survived. However, from time to time, as in the later
line with the country as a whole 1977:31). Extending the enquiry beyond
1400 is a
fourteenth century, the number surged to a much higher level? implying a greater than usual number of deaths. The most notable
risky, but nonetheless necessary, exercise. After that of 1397-8, there is no complete bursar’s rental extant until that of 1495-6. This reveals the number of tenants to have fallen still further, to no more than 280; but changes in administration and in tenurial structure make it much less conclusive than its predecessors as a demographic indicator. In the course of the fifteenth century, the
years were 1413 (seventy), 1429-30 (120), 1437-8 (152), 1444 (75), 1452 (128), 1468-9 (137) and 1486 (96). Of these, 1413, 1437-8 and 1468-9 coincide with national outbreaks of plague (Gottfried 1978:47-50), although 1437-8 were also years when grain prices, as recorded in the bursar’s accounts, doubled, presumably because of poor harvests, which suggests that famine may have
(Hatcher
land market gradually
and by convert-
abated as permanent
137
been an additional Tllesc figures whether
Durham
the Saltmarsh declining tur)., and
factor. raise the most
model,
cluestion
nearly
\vhich
which
to to
has population
until well into the fifteenth recovery not beginning until
1450: to that of Russell,
as
conforms
cenafter
sees rcco\~er)~
beginning about 1430; or to that of Bean, \vllich puts forkvard the idea that the decrisis o\‘c’r b). 1400 mographic was (Saltmarsh 1941; Russell 1948:260-81; Bean 1963). The evidence seems clearl!. to fa\.our the first. In particular, \rarious sets of income figures in the bursar’s account rolls indicate that the estate I-cached the nadir of its economic fbrtuncs in the 1440s and earl)- 145Os, and that significant Lgro\vth did not begin until 1460 or after. For example, cash income arising from the leasing of grain tithes, which stood at about U30 a year in the first decade of the centur)., collapsed to fl 11 6s 8d in 1453-4. B>- 1478-9 it had risen to El88 10s Od. onl>, to drop again slightl>- in the fbllo\ving decade, before rallying to about f180 in the last years of the centur!.. Similarly, mill leases generated E42 in 1418-19, but ).ielded onl) E22 in 1446 (Rainc 1839:C:C:XC:CCCV); by 1495, however, as the bursar’s rental reveals, their \.aluc had more than reco\,ered to stand at E49. An all but identical pattern can bc discerned in the rents of‘ tight demesne farms. In 1418-19 the)- produced a total income of Xl 02 14s 4d, but in 1446 they were \,alued at only f84 14 s Od 1839:CXXV-CEC:V) and in fact (Raine brought in no more than X58 because, significantly, t\vo of them, Pittington and BcwIcy, could not bc let. According to the 14956 rental, ho\ve\.er, all had tenants, \vhose rents amounted to 298 11s Od. The impres-
138
sion that the 1440s \vere a bad time is rcinforced by the dilapidation figures. In 1446, these
eight
manors
f 1 15 6s 8d worth
\verc
figure had dropped 183’_):C:C:>(\‘-C:C:C:V: 21 1 ), Finally, from
unlct
the
holdings
said
of repairs;
to require by
1464
the
to X36 (Raine Green\vell 1872:98-
loss
of re\‘enue
reached
a peak
arising of‘ E66
in 1449-50, but subseyuentl!fell a\va) gradually until, h)- 1492. it \vas a paltr). S3. \7t‘r~. similar trends are c\.ident in the accounts of some of the minor obedientiaries. Tlic tithes of El\.et parish. helonging to the hostillar, and recorded in his account rolls. ~w-e worth hetwcen X31 and &38 a year befixc 1438, but collapsed to bct\\wn 215 and 219 in the ).ears 1448-67, although the!. did recover to a modest degree after the latter )‘ear. The hostillar’s income loss because of‘ unlct holdings v.as at its ivorst a fc\\. \ ears earlier: nc~.er pre\.iously exceeding E4 is 8d, it jumped to an average of‘E10 2s 6d a lrar Iwtwccn 1440 and 1446. The almoner‘s and the commoner’s experiences \\‘ere identical. I\s their account rolls make ahundantl\~ clear, earlier annual losses of bct\veen fl and &3 suddenl)~ soared to an annual a\.erage of‘ 220 1 1s (id and X13 2s 1 Id respecti\,cl>.. In all cases. losses declined rapidl>afier 1450, but alwa~,s remained slightlyah)\-c the earl\- ccntur) le\-cls. Although ciiscrepancics het\veen these sets of figures are evident, they all point to the 1440s as a period of crisis, when income fell and unlet holdings increased in number. The common experience of the minor obcdientiaries in lhe first half of the decade rna~~ be conncctcd w.ith the fact that much of their income \tas dra\\,n hm tenements in the four small horoughs which no\+’ form the city of Durham. ” and that the sli,q-Shtl!.
later
trough
in the tithe
sent
a difference
between
situations. In conclusion, it agree w:ith Hatcher’s Mould lvere
appear fewer
people
mid-fifteenth fifty
or
1977:44).
This
may
urban
and
reprerural
years decline
is impossible not to assertion “that there
than
there
before” cannot
had
been
(Hatcher
be accurately
auantified. but it must have resulted in a population in 1448 less than half of the size of that in 1348. Equally certain is that outI
breaks of plague. or if not, of some equal11 effective biological killer, were primarily responsible. hIid-century, however, does seem to ha\,e been the low point in Durham, and as the century progressed the signs were of stability and then of modest growth.
Notes 1
I am indebted
rolls. the halmote court books, the hostillar’s account rulls. the almoner’s account rolls, the commoner’s account
rolls. The 177 bondlands were distributed as follow: Monkton 8. Harton 21. Southwick 10, South Pittinggon 8. Monk Hesledcn 16, Billingham 16. Co\vpen Bewley IS. hliddlestonc 12, Ferryhill 10. -) The mills \vcrc locatrd in \Vallsend. Nethct Heworth. \1’cstoe, Southlvick. East Rainton. North Pittington. Monk Heslcden. Billingham. \\~olviston, Ne\vton Be\vle)-, ;\yclifI’e. Kirk Merrington. Elyet. ,, The parishes \vere Jarrow. hIonk \\‘carmouth. Pittington. &Zonk Hcsleden. Billingham. :1ycliffe% Heighington. Kirk Mcrrington. :iII \verc extensive in towns 1‘ alps, ;area and included In total sixty-three The ten townships of ;\yclifTe parish were XyclifYe, \Voodham. Braffisrton, Ricknall, Prrston-leSkerne. Nunstainton. Hc\zorth. Ne\vton Ketton, Ne\\house. Grindon. II is interesting to note that fift) years carlicr. before the onset of Scottish raiding after the hattlc of Bannockhurn ( 1314), and hefbrc the errat famine of 13 13-l 7, the corn tithes of this rxuish Ld been worth about f 100 a vear. Similarly, the annual income from mills had I&en between flO0 and f 12.5. These levels were never again approached. and indeed recovery after 1330 \vas slow and far from complete by 1348. It is thcreforc clear that the pla~uc 1 j_ of 1349 struck a societ)- already seriously damaged Iq earlier disaster. R The present entry of Durham x~as formrd b! the merger of the bishop’s borough of Durham. the prior‘s boroughs of El\et and Crossgate and the bourough of Gilesgate controlled h) Kcpier Hospital. together with the area near the cathedral and the castle knw n as thr Baile!-.
-t
to be no doubt that there in the countryside in the
crntuq.
sixty
figures
to Mr A. J. Piper
for this informa-
tion. \Vallsrnd. \\‘illington, Over Heworth, Nether Heworth: Hedworth, Monkton, Jarro\v, Harton, i\‘estoc, South Shields, Southu-ick, Monk \\‘carmouth, Fulwell. Dalton-lc-Dale, East Rainton. t\‘est Rainton, Aloorsley. North Pittington, South Pittington, Monk Heslcden, Billingham. \Vol\-iston. Nebvton Bcwley, Xyrliffe, Burdon. Newton Ketton. hliddlcstone, LVestcrton. The first two townships, \\.allsend and \\‘illington, were on the north bank of the Tyne and thercfore in Northumherland, hut the) were members of the ancient Durham estate centred on Jarrob%. i These and all other unprinted manuscript sources used for this article are in the muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, housed in the Prior’s Kitchen. The rolls on which the names of dead customary tenants are recorded are in Locellus 1\.:146. 147a, 1471~: those containing the names of dead free tenants are in Locellus IV: 141 and Loccllus L-:78. Other manuscripts consulted are the bursar’s rentals, the bursar’s account rolls, the halmotr court
.,
Literature Bean, J. nl. \V. 1963. Plague. population and economic decline in England in the later middle ages. Economic history review, 2nd series 15. Dyer, C. 1980. Lords and peasants in a changing society. Cambridge. Dyer. C. 1984. The social and economic background to the rural rc\,olt of 1381. In: R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston (eds.). The English rising of 1381, Cambridge. Gottfried. R. S. 1978. Epidemic disease in fifteenth century England: the medieval response and its demo,yraphic consequence. Leicestcr. Greenwcll, IV. (ed.) 1872. Feodarium prioratus Dunelmensis. Surtecs Society 58. Durham.
139
140
\$‘riting cler Park Death places
Richard
some
understandably of the
after
emotive Cistercian
in Lincolnshire
the event, terms,
monastery claimed
and
in
the chroniof Louth
that the Black
of 1349 was so severe that in some as many as 80% of the population
were killed
Lomas
time
(Venables
1891:38).
Little
more
than 100 miles further north, a monk writing in the cathedral priory of Durham did not mention the catastrophe, even though two-thirds (fifty-five out of eighty-three) members of his house had perished (Raine 1839: 137-42).’ This sort of inconsistency
other parts of England. Following this is a consideration of the length of time over which the plague continued to have an adverse effect on the level of
and uncertainty has been the hallmark of our knowledge of the event ever since. It is, therefore, in the hope of increasing the precision of our understanding, if only in small measure, that this article sets out to explore what happened in one county in England. Immediately, it must be said that aim is to some extent pretentious and ambitious in that the discussion and the conclusions are based almost exclusively on evidence relatmore than twenty-eight ing to no townships.2 In fairness, however, they were well scattered across the central and eastern parts of the county, and in fact constituted a good cross-section of lowland settlements between the River Tyne and the River Tees. All of them belonged to Durham cathedral priory, but,yersiniapestis being blind to ownership, this is a fact of almost no signifi-
population and when a recovery began. All the evidence relates to properties belonging to the cathedral priory of Durham and is largely of an economic nature and therefore indirect and circumstantial. The exceptions are five short parchment rolls on which the monks recorded the names of their tenants who died in 1349, and it is the existence of this direct evidence that has made this study of special interest.
cance. iVlore specifically, this article will attempt to answer the two broad groups of questions always asked about the plague. The first is about initial impact in 1349: how many people died? Ft’hat percentage of the population did this represent? Tlrhat was the immediate reaction of the survivors and of the owners of the property they occupied? In
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it attempts to estimate the number of deaths inpercentage terms which Count_vDurham may have experienced in 1349 during the first outbreak of the plague and to compare this with what happened in
Journal of hledieval 0304-4181/89/$3.50
History- 15 (1989) 127-140 0 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.\..
[Nol-th-Holland)
127
considering
thcsc
qurstions
though
small
quality,
is available
and
to make
precise
and
The cerned
second group with a fleriod
after
direct
in cluantit>definite
clidence,
impcrfcct possif,le
prior’s in
fairl>-
answws.
ant,
of questions of‘ uncertain
1349: cvere there
sufxequent
is conlength outbreaks
of plagw, and what eITvct did the\. llavc? \Vhen did the population cease tc; shrink and perhafx flegin to grw1’ .A\ncl 110~ did the obser\2hle cliariges in social structuw and economic performance relate to thcsc e\-ents? Here. the e\iclence is much grcatcr in cluantitv and cfuality; f,ut because of its indirect nature it cannot bc used \\ith mmplctc conviction. The plague. ~2ugrzn pstilenricl as it came to f)e called in the priory’s records, was lxxsent in Count), Durham in the summer of‘ 1349. In the afxence of descripti\.c record it is not possible to fx certain how it arri\.cd. Perhaps it \vns I,>- ship through such ports as Hartlepool and KeLvcastle. Alternativcl>., it could 1lal.e been b\- road from the south, crossiyy the Ri\.er Tees b)- lvell-used routes such
as the salters’
filturc
road
North Road near Darlington. \vtl arc on firnier ground ~vlien
considering
the
cfhts
of the
\ve OIVC f~rincipally iiicnt
rolls
prior),‘:, under
estate
t11e>
recorded
year
128
tfir
ratfier
nanic’s
hut most - that
the
that
portion
of‘:hr
~1101~‘
and the tcr-
of the
custoniar\
inf‘ormation
likcl?, it ~vaa rlicitrd. of inquests,
summer
of tlic
the outf)reak.
is, the court
in spring,
This prcli-
mnna,g:rr~
of the f,ursar
tlic
asscrnf,lcd
f~lague. small
n\.o-thirds
who died during
f,l>- t,). nicans court
(or
to afx)ut
the control
tenants
to tlircc
Lvliicli
011
amounting
stated;
or the
Great
Happil!,,
rar)
at Stockton,
in the
hcfd three and autumn
HOM is
not
possifialmotc
times a in the
manor
houses,
to Lvhich all custom-
ary tenants owed suit. Since it ~vas at these meetings, or turns, that all changes of tcnarising
from
\vc‘rc‘ approvc‘d Ilaw
hccn
fill- this otlirr
and
ivhate\w circumstance, recorded, tflw ~\oulcl
tllc ofn.ious
sort
rolls,
of enquiry. ont
and f)rofxr In
a duplicate
occasions
addition. of tfic
t\vo other,
fia\.e sur\-ivcd
on \3 liich the names of‘ dead fi-cc tenants arc rvcordcd. VTnfi)rtunatcl~., hotI arp \‘cr>- fx~clf~~ danlaged t,y danlp. i ‘I‘lic \xluc of this widvncc is greatl!- cnIlanced tx the csistcncc of the f,ursar’s rcntal fi)r the financial ! car 1347-8. The f)urpox of‘ this class 01‘ document, \\-liich was connI~ilecl annualI). \\xs to f;icilitatc the colfcction
of‘renth,
and to mat)lts
tlic bursar
to
tllv mtcnt to \\.hicfl IIC hatf fxwi able to discharge liis cfut) In fi)rni tfiv? consisted of’. untfrr to~vnafiip licaclings. lists of tenants, wliat ~~icfi ficfd. and wflat rent 11~ or slit 01~~ccf. ‘l‘lir!- i\‘c’rc’ l~rq~;~rccl nt~atl!~ and lcgihf) twfi)rc rent collection t KTgan, and N~CI‘Ccorrc‘ctccl as Illort’ up-todate facts came to light. and annotated to indicate \vfictlicr rents (in almost all casts kno\\- f)rvciscl>-
olved
twice-\-earl!.,
Illkj
had
at \\‘hitsun
and _\lartin-
full\ lnid. It would set’m, therehe, a straightfi)r\vard task to compare tfic t\vo sets of lists, and thcrch). to disco\.et f~cn
the nunlher of‘ plague deaths in both aggrcgate and percmtaq~ tcw1is. Such a possihilit). ~tould sc’c’ni rat1ic.r too good to Ix true: and indeed it is, altllough the cfcficicncics and discrcpancics (;ftflc c\.idence are not so great a5 significant]) to rlndtmnine the conclusions arising fixxll it. \\%at arc the inadccfuacicx1’ First is the afv scncc from thr post-mortem records wfating to custoniar). truants of tlirce important mw~t)ers 01‘ tflc vstatc: tlit: tcwnshifx of‘
Kirk Bewley. passed
Merrington, This by
raises
the
Ferryhill
and
doubts:
were
plague;
or,
Cowpen
Taken
they
to remove
as seems
bymore
accurate
together,
the above
any chance
factors
of reaching
combine absolutel)
conclusions.
likely, was there a failure to note, or subsequent loss of the record of, the deaths that
Allowing for its defects, what does the evidence indicate? The answer, in brief, is
did occur?
a severe situation. The number of tenants who died in the twenty-eight townships in
tenants
References
in those
to the deaths
townships
would
of free seem
to
indicate the latter. Also missing, this time from the rental, are all but three of the very important tenements known as bondlands, of which there nine among 117 distributed lvere is townships.’ Tl le reason for their absence that their rent was entirely in the form of labour service, except for certain customar) rents in cash and kind owed to the terrar. The onl)- bondlands mentioned in the rental were two in Monkton and one in h1onk Hesleden, which had been leased. Finally, the loss of the 1348-9 rental, and the illegibility through damp damage of much of two of the inquest documents relating to free tenants, are added problems. Because of all this, and no doubt because of scribal error, induced perhaps by the chaos and misery of the time, the names of thirty-seven tenants recorded in the postmortem documents do not occur in the 1347-8 rental. In a number of cases the tenant was present, but under another name. For example, the tenant of a sixteen-acre holding in Monk \Yearmouth was known as Alice daughter of Ralph in 1347, but as Alice Rose in 1349. Likewise, Rqbert of \\:ardley, holding in Over Heworth in 1347, was known in death as Robert the reeve. Several other examples could be produced, although less confidently; in the end, however, it must he allowed that a number of changes of tenant would have occurred in the normal way between 1347 and 1349.
1349 totalled
362; the number
of tenants
in
the same townships in 1347 kvas, on best estimate, 718. Thus, the death rate was slightly over 50%. Almost inevitably, the distribution was not uniform. In percentage terms deaths ranged from 21% at nlonkton to 78% at Jarrow. As if to highlight the capthese two riciousness of the disease, townships were physically contiguous and historically associated. A similar gap is also another pair of close apparent in neighhours, Over and Nether He\vorth, where 36% and 72% respecti\rellof the tenants died. In contrast, and more logically, deaths in two other adjacent townships, Jt’olviston and Billingham, were 47% and Overall, holvever, the 45% respectively. shade is nearer to black than to Mhite, lvith sixteen of the townships having a tenant death rate in excess of 50%. Some regional variation is also discernible. In the four townships near the mouth of the River \Vear - Southwick, Fulwell and nlonk \t’earmouth - the average death rate was 60%, with 56% at Fullvell being the lowest incidence. In contrast, further up the \l:ear valley near Durham, another group of townships - East and I1Test Rainton, illoorsley, and North and South Pittington - had an average death rate of 43%, and in only one place, North Pittington, did more than half the tenants die. These changes are not explicable, particularly as all twentyeight settlements were in lowland parts of
129
the county nest to, or \.ery ri\.ers (Tyne, \\‘car, Tees), important tributaries. Explaining the spread not
be
so
difficult.
near, its majoi or one of theit
helokv of the plague
Shreb3hur).
that the o\rerland mox.ement Mould 1iaL.e been severcl~.
IXI)~
has argued of the plague hampered, 01
c\.cn halted, by the concentration ofpopulation in nucleated settlements separated tj) estcnsi\.e tracts of land dcwid of‘ outlJ,ing fa r iii s . “ivhich i$.ould lla\~e scr\,ed as links in the train of transmission of rat-plague fhm one \-illa,qe concentration of house rats to another” (1970:24). In fact, the settlement pattern of lowland Durham ~vas precisel!. that \vhicll Shre\vsbur)said did not obtain: large numbers of discrete farms occup)ring parts of‘ the tracts of moorland that separated the older nucleated \.illages. One csa111p1c. Lvliich includes t L\‘O of‘ the townships in his stud).. will illustrate this. Ch the main road to Sunderland, about sc\~rn miles from Durham, la>- the large and inlportant episcopal tox\nship of HoughtonIc-Spring. Bctlveen these tivo places ~vcre not oiil\~ three nucleated settlcmcnts Gilcsgate horougli and the villages of East Kainton and \\‘est Rainton - hut also fi\.c farms: High Grange and Low Grange, helonging to Kcpirr Hospital. a IlCl Ra\,ensflatt, Rloor House and Rainton Llanor. \vhicli wvc prior)- properties. As a result,
the distance
het\\,een
an!.
tkvo
settlc-
nlents ~t’as less than a mile. Thus. although the population of Count) Durham at this time vxs almost ccrtainl:, small in total. it mu distributed through a large number of small medium-sized, and hut close11 and not concentrated spaced, settlenlcnts, in large villages. In the end, l~owww, perhaps the most
130
important Rainton Over
f&t is that only two places - East and Alonkton - had a death rate
30%, Heworth,
and
in a mere Hcdworth
three and
others
\l’est
-
Rain-
ton - ~vas it bet\j,een 30% and 40”/0. In COIItrast, seven tocvnships - Harton, South Shields. hloorsle),. South Pittington, hllonk Hcsleden, Billingham and \Yolviston - had death rates het\veen 40% and 49”/0, kvhilc in another eight ~ \\‘illin,gton, \\‘rstoe. Southivick, Ful\\.ell, Newxon Bewlex-. i\).cliflk. \\‘esterton and Burdon - hct\vecn 30% and 59% died. and in eight morr \Vallsend, Nether Hexvorth, ,Jarro\v. hlonk \Vearmouth, Dalton le Dale. North Pittington, Nebvton Kctton and hliddlestonc ~ deaths exceeded 60%. Here it must be stressed that the numbers under discussion were of tenants, not total population. \\‘ould the percentages Ilaw ~KTII different if ex-idence fbr the population as a \vhole had hccn a\~ailahlc? Prohabl\ not: after all, \vll\. should the disease have or \vhy should the\. smgled out tenants, lia\.e lxcii more \xlnerable than otlie;nlcmbers of their communities? \Vhat is certain is that there \\xs no se\ disci.irnination: of the 718 tenants 13 lvere women, of‘ L\-liom 52% died. that is. \.cr!. slightl!. and thcrcfbrc prohahl\. not aiqiificantlx more than fi)r the group 21s a kvhole. \\Iierc the figures could be nlisleading is in the ahence althou,qli it ma)- be suspected of children, that their inclusion l\.ould ha\,e raised rather than lowxvd the percentage. :I deatll rate of o\.cr 50% is lii,qli lq aii~. standard, but 110~ does it compare \\ith parts of‘ EnglandI’ It has been suggested that the a\.erage mortalit)on tllc bishop of \\‘incliester’s estate xvas about 66%. and fbr the t\vcnt) -t\\v manors he-
otllrl
\Vhat
was the immediate
response
to this
longing to Glastonbury abbey, 55% (Titow 1969:69-71). On the other hand, evidence
appalling
from the twelve
of the iVorcester-
of the rolls suggests
suggests
ings lost their tenant, that small discrepancy between
is, 53%. (The these and the
lower
is explained
shire
parish
age mortality that region,
townships
of Halesowen of 40%, for the
an aver-
and, also in the same seventeen townships
number
figures
of deaths3
The
evidence
that 419 of the 790 hold-
for the tenants
b;c
owned by the bishop of \l:orcester indicates 42% (Razi 198O:lOl; Dyer 1980:238). Al-
the fact that one holding.)
though v.ery close in average, these two groups of settlements differ considerably as regards range: in Halesowen, the highest and lowest figures were 57% and 33% respectively, a much narrower span than the 80% to 17% of the \\:orcester estate. In this \l:orcester was much nearer to the Durham experience than was Halesowen, which more closely resembled the Glastonbur) manors, where the range was from 69% to 33%. \\‘ide variation was equally the case elsewhere. At Cuxham, Oxfordshire, and at Calstock, Cornwall, between 60% and 70% of tenants are reckoned to have perished; and at Kibworth Harcourt, Leicestershire, and Oakington, Cambridgeshire, total deaths probably exceeded 70% (Harve) 1965: 135-6; Hatcher 1970: 105; Howell 1983: 16, 42; Page 1934:120-5). In contrast, the dead at Climsland, Cornwall, amounted to no more than 40%, while at Dr) Drayton, Cambridgeshire, the figure was even lower at 38% (Hatcher 1970: 105; Page
least 195, or 46%, of these vacated holdings had been relet. This can be asserted with confidence in view of the addition in the left-hand margin of the words terra cufita, meaning that the holding had been taken by a new tenant. Unfortunately, the documents recording tenants’ deaths, being undated (at least as they now exist), the length of time between the death of tenants and the entry of their successors cannot be determined. However, their appearance, and the variations in their form and wording, make it hard to believe that they were composed later than the spring or summer courts in 1350, and that therefore they do not show the situation obtaining ver) shortly after the catastrophe. To the 195 certainties ma)- be added a further ninety-four instances where, although the words terra cupta do not appear, the internal evidence clearly points to the holding being in the hands of a new tenant. In all, therefore, 289 tenements had been relet, a take-up rate of 69%. This is some
1934: 120-5). Ov:erall, however, it seems likely that deaths exceeded 50% more often than not, which suggests that the farming population suffered slightly more than monks and parish clergy, for whom a maximum death rate of 45% is postulated, and much more than the great landowners, of whom a mere 27% are said to have died Russell (Hollingworth 1969:221-6; 1948:215-22).
way below the figures of 82% and 91% respectively in Halesowen parish and in Kibworth Harcourt (Razi 1980: 110; Howell 1983: 42), and reinforces the idea of a high death rate in Durham. Also worth noting is that only forty-nine or 17% of the new tenants were identified as being of their predecessor’s immediate family (twenty-eight spouses, sixteen children, three siblings and
some tenants had more than By the time of the inquests at
131
tmm paret~tsj, \vliich ina!- imp]>- that a h-g-c number of entire families had hccn kviped out. Almost incvitab]>., ied I~etcvccn one place
the take-up rate varand another. Thus,
at Nether Hewmth, t\t.clve of the tllirtccn holdings \xcatcd had been rclct, \\hcrms in tlcighhouring O\.er Hmvortll only one in eight. SitnilarlJ-,
the fi,qurc‘ MXS at North Pit-
titigtoti thirteen out of‘ the ciglitccti ltolctit~gs afC.xted had hecn rctcnantcd, hut at South Pittington the figuws kvere li)ur out of‘ t\vetit).-enc. In addition to hcts ahut tltc death of‘ tenants and the reletting of‘ their holdings, tlir post-tnortctn ctocutnentb contain itihrtnation about other matters. In particular. 143 entries include details of tlic state of‘ cultivation on the holding and/or an in\.entar!. of‘so~nc’ or all of its stock. Such details a~ rarcl!. included in tnanorial court rc’cords of‘ this date, and are certainI?- esccptional in thy prior!-‘5 lialtiiot~ court rolls. C:otiscclumtl~-, an analysis of tltcnl ma) 1~ jttstiGal)l>~ included, ~vcn though it trln!. not 1~ strictl! t.clc.~.atit to tlir main matter of‘ this article. Perhaps tlic most obvious I‘eaturc. is the wriation in tlic percentqc of‘ arable land under crops. In tliirteen of‘ tlir 130 wtries \vliere tlic figures can 1x tmd, otil\- oticthird of‘ the land ~t’as sobn, \vliile in t\vo others all of it \vas under crol~5. Of‘ the rctnaindrr. sixty-se\,en (32”AJ) had half 01‘ their land so\vn, bvltile fort! -cigllt (37% ) had t\vo-thirds in LIW. Alost towashilx ;I]>par to IAll into one or otlicr categor) 1 but Hcd\vorth. \\.rstoe. South\vick. S(‘\.Cll LIonk \l’eartnoutl~, Ful\\-ell, Plonk Hcslrden and Billingllanl - had some tenements in both categories. C~onscclucntl~. it is not possible to cotnc to an utiatnt~iguous conclu-
sion as to the crop rotation s)‘stein in uhc. Xs regards the crops tl~cmscl\-cs, the picture is much grmvn, to tlic
less corhsecl. al\va)-s recorded sc’asc~ti of tlicit-
Four
field crops
\verc
in
pairs according smvitig: lvlieat and
occasionallv
and oats and peas. fi-cclucntl~~ clcas hlndi zlemu1i.s or (ie .semiue wm~li.~.
sari bed
refitrred
to
as
/Adi
harlty.. hiemdis;
In niost instances. qua1 nutiihers or acrc5 ol‘cacli pair ofgrains Lvere ,qro\\m, hut b.lierc tlic nuinhrs \vvrc L~IIC\~~II tlic lx~lan~~ IV;IS tiiostlv in fa\wur of‘ the winter ccrcals. ;hi~tnals f&ture l~rotiiitictitl~~. if‘utiv\wil~~. Alost important mvt’ tlir draught animals: 201 OXCII and 16.5 horses. ‘lht hot-xca constituted only 45% of‘ thy total lrnds sotne support to tlie rccctit argutiict-tt that thy north was pritiiaril\~ ox coutitr?. and that, at tltc tqintiiti~ of‘tlic fi)ut-tectitli ccntur\.. liorxs a~co~tit~d fi)r ahut 40% of‘ thv clraugltt animals o\mcd 1)~. tlit, lwasatitr~ ( Langdon 1986:203~3). Bcti)rc looking at the distribution pattern. it should hc notccl that. \\.llilc oscn fi)rtncd ati utidif~~rcntiatcd class, liotxs \vvtx distinguished 1)). the terms rqum and cf#!;fr/l.c. it 11as txvi asserted, ~121s ‘l‘hr h111cr, applied to tlic. superior cart horse, bvhilc tlic latter \\.as rescr\.ccl ti)r lower-grade animals used
in plougliing ant1 liarro\\.iti,g ( IJangdon 1086:86). Thr v\.idence hcrc will not hatthis intcrprctation: tliv same term was used to dtxritx~ all tlir 1~01-5~sin ;I to~vtisliip; and there is no cxatnple or hotli tt’rtiis IIcing uhtd to clifYcrctitiate t~etwwti tyIx4 of lior5t o~~nccl t,). an indi\-idital, or mittiiti a cotnmutiity. Tlit- leading f‘act atmut the chuglit atiimals is tlicir association \\,itli tlic latyyt (‘1’11~ di\riding line hct\vc.cn tenetncnts. tat-gcr and stnallrr holdings is of newshit)
artificial, smaller
but, because bondland,
appropriate ants,
it was the size of the
sixteen
on this estate).
eighty-eight
(62%)
acres is the most Of the 143 tenhad
holdings
of
priory’s
demesne
farm records indicates
the
foot plough as the most likely. The similar,
pattern
of harrow
but not identical.
ownership Ninety
was
harrows
sixteen or more acres, and fifty-five (38%) had tenements of smaller size. Of the larger
were recorded, since thirty-one
tenants, seventy-eight (89%) one draught animal, whereas
than one. Not surprisingly, fort).-right tenants owned both plough and harrovv, but a
had at least only thirteen
but only fift),-two owners, (60%) of them had more
mere three had a harrow only, with nineteen owning a plough harrow.
compared but not a
(24%) of the smaller tenants had either horse or ox. The association is further emphasized by the fact that, of the sixty-two tenants with both horse and ox, no less than fift)--eight or 94% were larger tenants. The view that the ox was preponderant in this area is given added support by the fact that of those tenants with both horses and oxen, 53% had more oxen than horses and 16% had equal numbers; only 3 1% had a majority of horses. LIoreover, of the twenty-two in this category, fourteen had larger holdings. which gives little encouragement to the opinion that horses were a feature of small farms (Langdom 1986:2024). Finally, the number of animals owned by individuals is as follows. 0n~ animal: eleven tenants; two animals: thirteen tenants; lhree animals: twenty tenants;,f&r animals: fifteen tenants;,fit’e animals: eleven tenants; six a?limals: nine tenants; sez’elzanimals: five ten-
The situation regarding carts was more complex. In all, sixty-five tenants between them had seventy-eight carts. Of this number, seventeen (22%) are described h) the word currus, while the other 78% appear as either cnrecta or carta, the two terms apparentl>- being synonymous. Although not absolutely certain, it seems likely that the Langdon has names were used, as suggested, to distinguish the larger. heavier cart from the smaller, lighter vehicle ( 1986: 142-53). Forty-five tenants, that is 31%, had plough, harrow and cart, and all but three of them held larger tenements. In addition to draught animals, eightyfive cows vverc owned by fifty-four tenants. The): were scattered in a seemingl?, haphazard fashion across the estate, and
ants; eight animnls: three tenants; nine animals: tW0 tenants; ten animals: one tenant; tu~ehe animals: one tenant.
only at \t:est Rainton does the evidence indicate a serious commitment to dairy farming. Similarly, fifty-four vvell-scattered ten-
The implements to lvhich these animals were harnessed also appear frequently in the inventories. Seventy-four ploughs were noted, ov2-ned by sixt),-nine tenants, that is, 48% of the total. Again, the large tenants were more prominent, sixty-four (73%) owning a plough, compared with onl). fiv,e smaller tenants. Not recorded was the type of plough, although the evidence of the
ants possessed between them 506 sheep, but only thirteen of them had more than nine animals, and there were only three flocks of substantial size: one of forty-five at Harton, another of sixty at nliddlestone, and a third of sixty-six at Dalton-le-Dale. Finall>-, and rather surprisingly, only twenty-seven tenants were credited with owning that most useful of animals, the pig.
133
Finally,
in
113 cases
the
inventor)-
cludes household utensils. Three lar Lvere \:ery common: pitchers
in-
in particu(011~ ~2~7):
120 in ninety-nine houses: bow& (Jnfelln): ninety in eighty-three houses; and chests (cistn):
fifty-nine
tioned,
but less frequently,
bum) ~ boxes
in fifty houses. (nrchn),
Also
\vere vats
posncts
men(@urn-
(~!~~en&un2).
trivets (trips) and cradles (czun) The basic impression conveyed by these in\v~tories is of an economy almost exclusi\-ely concerned kvith arable farming, and, Lvith a fe\v individual exceptions, ha\ring little interest in animals, other than those needed for draught purposes. Also elident is the une\‘en distribution of goods in man). places. The problem is to decide ho~v accuratelv the documents reflect the situation: the regularity and apparent fullness of the entries for places such as Harton and Southwick suggest that recording else\\-here ma). ha\.c been partial and slipshod. \\‘hat happened in the two generations after 1349, that is. in the fifty )-ears to the end of the century:’ There is, unfortunately. no direct evidence of the plague and its immediate effects in this period of the sort available for the disaster of 1349. Ho\ve\.er. there is extant in some quantit!. a \,nriet)- of c\.iclence which, if used cautiously, prm~ides a not unconvincing outline of bvliat occurred. The best starting point perhaps is the bursar’s rental of 1396-7, \vhich regrcttabl>, is the only complete example (except for that of the follo\ving ycarj to have sur\i\.ed for the period between the 1340s and 1495. \Vhcn set alongside that of 1347, it is readi]!. seen that there had been a substantial rccluction in the number of tenants from 7 18 to 409, that is, 43%. Ine\.itablJ.. the extent
134
of the decline
\Taried from place
to place.
In
East Rainton, for example, there was in fact no change, fourteen tenants being present in both years; while in South Shields the 1396 total
was
1347, thirty-three In contract,
only
three
compared
at Nekvton
less than with
Ketton,
that
of
thirt),-six.
where
there
had been elc\,en tenants in 1347, the entire township was leased to one man in 1396. Similarly, South Pittington \vas held by tkvo tenants at the end of the century, lvhereas in 1347 it had accommodated thirt),-one. Equally evident is the absence of change in the tenurial structure, except at South Shields (kvhich was a fishing Lrillage), hvhere the number of holdings had risen from thirty-three to forty-six. Everyhcre tenements \vere unlet. but the most significant change leas the ividespread and estensilre engrossing. Some tenants, of course, continued in the traditional mode lvith one holding onI>,; but at the other end of the spectrum lvere men like Thomas Egermond of Fulwell, \vlio \vas in possession of three cottages without land, f&r holdings of tlvelvc acres. one of sixteen acres, and one of t\z-enty-t\vo acres, all lvith tofts, for a total of eight).-six acres. cvhich \vas 45% of the tenant land of the tolz-nship. XIoreo\rer, as the halmote court rolls reveal. he continued to increase his stake. until by 1409 hc occupied ten tenements and 60% of all the arable land. This agglomeration did not prove permanent, how-ever, and it \vas broken up kvhen Egermond died in the late 1420s. Playing the land market in this fashion, \\hich resulted in many farms of more than fifty acres, and not a few in excess of 100 acres, \vas made easy b)- the adoption of a nelv fbrm of tenure. Previously, almost all
tenants
held their
ment
of an entry
tions
being
holdings line
for life after pay-
(gressuma),
the relatively
small
the excepnumbers
of
neifs, who held ad voluntatem domini. Starting in the late 136Os, but growing rapidly in the last decade way
of the century,
to the short
lease
these
of three,
forms
gave
six or nine
years, and here and there longer periods of entry fine. By up to thirty years, without 1430, the transition to leasehold tenure was virtually complete, and, except at the fishing village of South Shields, where it lingered for another generation, life tenure became an occasional oddity. In this the priory’s estate stood in contrast to that of the bishop of Durham, in whose townships copyhold tenure emerged as the dominant form in the fifteenth century. \Thy leasehold was adopted cannot be stated with complete confidence. Almost certainly, it would have been welcomed by many tenants, since it freed them from the not inconsiderable burden of the entry fine, as well as from a tenurial arrangement inimical to a freely operating land market. Equally, for the estate managers there may have been a perceived advantage. They, had long experience of the lease in letting corn mills and their right to the grain tithe of their appropriated parishes, and in the same years after 1390 they were putting all but a handful of their demesne farms into the hands of lessees. Consequently, they may have come to the conclusion that a single form of tenure, applied to all types of property, was a sensible managerial policy. In doing so, they would appear to have been part of a small minority of landowners and managers who saw leasehold tenure as the best answer to the problems they faced in the closing years of the fourteenth century
(Dyer
1984:26).
clusive point,
statements more
H owever, can
specifically
before be
made
directed
any
con-
on
this
research
is
required. The hint that the population was about 45% lower at the end of the century than it was just
before
the plague
of 1349 is given
some support by the figures for income derived from corn mills, as recorded in the bursar’s rolls. The bursar’s account townships in County Durham were served by a network of thirteen mills, to which all customary tenants, some small freeholders, and the tenants of certain of the priory’s gentry freeholders, owed suit, in most cases paying a multure of one measure in thirteen.’ The mills were never subject to direct management, but were leased for one to three years to millers, or to consortia that included a miller, and as a result their rents were close to true economic value. In 1347 the income from the mills came to E95 13s 4d, while in 1396 it amounted to 253 OS Od, that is, a drop of 45%. However, this evidence may be questioned in the light of the known tendency for landlords to become unwilling, or unable, to enforce suit of mill against their tenants, or to prevent independent mills coming into existence, with the result that mill rents and land rents fell out of line (Hatcher 1970: 176-7). Against this, it must be said that in Durham there is no evidence of upstart mills, and, more significantly, positive evidence in the priory’s halmote court records that the monks continued to exercise control over their tenant communities in this as in other matters. As an illustration, a cluster of entries for the years 1505 and 1506 may be cited, relating to Southwick mill, to which the tenants of Southwick,
135
outed suit. Fulw ell and hIonk \I’earmouth The miller ~vas accused of slvapping good I>)grain for had, and \vas also prosecuted
reasons for the steep decline after 1293 (Rainc incomc ccliii). ‘he truth of this claim
a Ful\~.ell
trated
tenant
fbr
thcfi.
On
thr
other
hy t\vo to\vnships
in their tithr 1839:ccxliiiis neatly
of about
illus-
equal
aizc
hand, the tenants of‘hlonk \Yearmouth and I:ul\~~ell had to he rcmindrd of their ohligation to grind their corn at South\vick, and
in this longed
oiic
6s 8d to 29 6s 8~1. txt\veen 1348 and 1396, kvherras at \Vooclham, which \vas di\.idecl between hvo gentr)- hmilica, the declinr in income \vas fi-om Xl 1 6s 8d to 23 6s 8d, that the decline conis. 7 1%. E‘urthernlorr. tinucd until, after 1426, the corn tithe \\.as said to IM\Y )-ielded nothing. quicr mu .~n~incr/ur: \\‘oodhm had bccomc the dvsrrtcd site it is toda!.. All this said, ho\\,c\.cr, in broad terms the collapse of tithe inconlr, like the f‘all in the \-alue of mills. mwst hc SCCII as rcflccting, altwit to an uncertain de,grw, a drop in the lcvcl of‘ population.
mcmhc-r
of‘ the
latter
comniunit)~
\vas
amcrced for not doing so. The onI>, cleviation from traditional practice \vas that the LISC of qucrns \vas permitted. provided a licence was bought from the lcsscc of the mill. Similar conclusions ina). Ix dra~2~ii from tllp evidence Durham, count tlic
also rolls.”
titlics
leased cash
relating
to the grain
appropriated
eight
recorded Rccausc
of some
his right but
mo\.cd,
apparently
bursar
to\\nships
ai-
collected
IJut in others
people,
for corn
of
Count\
in the bursar’s the
to local
sometimes
tithes
in
parishes
mostly
or malt.
l~apl~azardl~~,
fi)l
2nd
fi-on1 ont
f‘orni of mana~cmcnt to the other, valid comparisons arr difficult. The most LIIIcqui\~ocal c~.itlcncc is that from tllc parish of XyclifG, in the south-wntral area of the count).. In 1348, the right to the grain tithes of its ten townships was sold for cash amounting to C6Y 5s (Id.’ BJ. lY96, bvhen again the right to all the titllcs \~as sold fill cash, no more than UO 10s Od was realized. ‘l’hc dcclinc \vas thereforc 56% ~ significant]) q-eater than tlir fall iii the number of tenants, or the \xluc of the mills. On? ewplanation of this diff‘erence is that, unlike tenant holdings and mills, the prior) \~a!- of directing the farming policies of‘ the farmers of thr parish. Thr \\-ere Lvell alvarc of this, so much so l-120 ness
the). ofothcr
fi-om arahlc
136
Lverc
to
lords
farminq
put
fim4xrcl
to allmv
tenants
had no of‘most monks that
in
tlica Millingto retreat
as one of the fbur niajoi
parish. In A!-cliffc itself. lvhich Ixto the prior),, the \.aluc of the grain
tithes
fell 11). no mow
than
28%.
from
213
But can this tlen~oyxphic dcclinc Ix attriljutcd to recurring outl>reaks 01‘ plng~~c:’ ‘lIicrc~ is s,oni(~ c~idrnc~ to twcouragv tllat idPa, in particular thv record of‘tllt, changes 01 tenant in tlic halmotc court rolls. In that tllq.
rccorcl
Incnt purpose.
C~LISC of death
tliu
arc
Sc\.crtlIclcss,
n01mal
\ cars
cliang~s
time
ncithvr
of licriots,
Iwtu
of‘tcnanc~~
to time
not tllty
tui
tliirt\
occurrrd.
the numhcr
nor
lwrkct
rcvcal and hut
surged
pa!.-
fbr our
that hrt\ that
in
-li\,c fi_onI
to a lli,ghcr
le\.vl. The outstanding instance is thv t\\‘o wars 1YciS and 1370, v.hen a total of‘ 12’7 chug-S-es of‘tcnant took place, and since 1369 is rcckoncd to bc ;I plax~~c !.car nationall>~ the conclusion st’mis ohAnus. ‘I’hr bvhen recorded. drnw
income
second
1110st notat,1c
SC\ wit>--tlIrrc
tcnanc)~
) Cal‘ \vas changes
137’1. \\.ert
tlicrc is supportiiig c\.iof‘ tilt. figures for loss of from \vastc-d rents. that is,, rents that Here,
in
the
li)rin
were
unpaid
because
the
unlet, which were included at the end of the bursar’s
holdings
were
as an allowance annual
account.
priory
expanded
land by buying
the amount out a large
of customary number
of its
own small freehold
tenants,
In 1379 the figure was E27, but in the fol-
ing
quantities
lowing year it jumped to 243. Clearly, something serious had happened although it ma)
land. More significantly, the halmote court books clearly reveal that during the second
be rash to assert that it was an outbreak
quarter
of
considerable
of the century
of
demesne
the v~olatility of the
plague, particularly as 1379 is not known as plague year. Sharp increases in the number of lettings also occurred in 1375 (fifty-two), 1381 (fifty-six), 1385 (fifty-eight), 1389 (sixty) and 1398 (fifty-three), of which 1385 and 1398 were years when the plague is thought to have been rife. Finally, it must be noted that, although there is no surviving evidence for Durham, plague was recorded in the Norham (Northumberland) court rolls in 1362. This was the time of the socalled “children’s plague”, and there is no reason to be1iev.e that Norham was affected while Durham remained untouched. From such indirect evidence an)- conclusion must be inchoate. Nevertheless, the facts do suggest that, by the end of the fourteenth century, the population was a little, but not much, more than half of what it had been before 1349, and that periodic bouts of high mortality were a major contributory factor. If so, Durham was very clearly in
conglomerate holdings coalesced, and then continued in the same families over several generations. As a consequence ever) township, with the exception of the fishing village of South Shields, became dominated by a small group of well-endowed tenants, who between them held all, or virtually all, of the land. Gradually, these groups were formed into syndicates, each of whose members vvas responsible for an equal share of the global rent. As this static and artificial structure developed, so the number of tenants ceased to bear any necessary relation to the size of the population (Lomas: 1977). At the same time, the evidence of the halmote court books continues to be significant. In most years the number of changes of tenant was between twenty-five and fifty, with an average of forty-four for the eightynine years for which evidence has survived. However, from time to time, as in the later
line with the country as a whole 1977:31). Extending the enquiry beyond
1400 is a
fourteenth century, the number surged to a much higher level? implying a greater than usual number of deaths. The most notable
risky, but nonetheless necessary, exercise. After that of 1397-8, there is no complete bursar’s rental extant until that of 1495-6. This reveals the number of tenants to have fallen still further, to no more than 280; but changes in administration and in tenurial structure make it much less conclusive than its predecessors as a demographic indicator. In the course of the fifteenth century, the
years were 1413 (seventy), 1429-30 (120), 1437-8 (152), 1444 (75), 1452 (128), 1468-9 (137) and 1486 (96). Of these, 1413, 1437-8 and 1468-9 coincide with national outbreaks of plague (Gottfried 1978:47-50), although 1437-8 were also years when grain prices, as recorded in the bursar’s accounts, doubled, presumably because of poor harvests, which suggests that famine may have
(Hatcher
land market gradually
and by convert-
abated as permanent
137
been an additional Tllesc figures whether
Durham
the Saltmarsh declining tur)., and
factor. raise the most
model,
cluestion
nearly
\vhich
which
to to
has population
until well into the fifteenth recovery not beginning until
1450: to that of Russell,
as
conforms
cenafter
sees rcco\~er)~
beginning about 1430; or to that of Bean, \vllich puts forkvard the idea that the decrisis o\‘c’r b). 1400 mographic was (Saltmarsh 1941; Russell 1948:260-81; Bean 1963). The evidence seems clearl!. to fa\.our the first. In particular, \rarious sets of income figures in the bursar’s account rolls indicate that the estate I-cached the nadir of its economic fbrtuncs in the 1440s and earl)- 145Os, and that significant Lgro\vth did not begin until 1460 or after. For example, cash income arising from the leasing of grain tithes, which stood at about U30 a year in the first decade of the centur)., collapsed to fl 11 6s 8d in 1453-4. B>- 1478-9 it had risen to El88 10s Od. onl>, to drop again slightl>- in the fbllo\ving decade, before rallying to about f180 in the last years of the centur!.. Similarly, mill leases generated E42 in 1418-19, but ).ielded onl) E22 in 1446 (Rainc 1839:C:C:XC:CCCV); by 1495, however, as the bursar’s rental reveals, their \.aluc had more than reco\,ered to stand at E49. An all but identical pattern can bc discerned in the rents of‘ tight demesne farms. In 1418-19 the)- produced a total income of Xl 02 14s 4d, but in 1446 they were \,alued at only f84 14 s Od 1839:CXXV-CEC:V) and in fact (Raine brought in no more than X58 because, significantly, t\vo of them, Pittington and BcwIcy, could not bc let. According to the 14956 rental, ho\ve\.er, all had tenants, \vhose rents amounted to 298 11s Od. The impres-
138
sion that the 1440s \vere a bad time is rcinforced by the dilapidation figures. In 1446, these
eight
manors
f 1 15 6s 8d worth
\verc
figure had dropped 183’_):C:C:>(\‘-C:C:C:V: 21 1 ), Finally, from
unlct
the
holdings
said
of repairs;
to require by
1464
the
to X36 (Raine Green\vell 1872:98-
loss
of re\‘enue
reached
a peak
arising of‘ E66
in 1449-50, but subseyuentl!fell a\va) gradually until, h)- 1492. it \vas a paltr). S3. \7t‘r~. similar trends are c\.ident in the accounts of some of the minor obedientiaries. Tlic tithes of El\.et parish. helonging to the hostillar, and recorded in his account rolls. ~w-e worth hetwcen X31 and &38 a year befixc 1438, but collapsed to bct\\wn 215 and 219 in the ).ears 1448-67, although the!. did recover to a modest degree after the latter )‘ear. The hostillar’s income loss because of‘ unlct holdings v.as at its ivorst a fc\\. \ ears earlier: nc~.er pre\.iously exceeding E4 is 8d, it jumped to an average of‘E10 2s 6d a lrar Iwtwccn 1440 and 1446. The almoner‘s and the commoner’s experiences \\‘ere identical. I\s their account rolls make ahundantl\~ clear, earlier annual losses of bct\veen fl and &3 suddenl)~ soared to an annual a\.erage of‘ 220 1 1s (id and X13 2s 1 Id respecti\,cl>.. In all cases. losses declined rapidl>afier 1450, but alwa~,s remained slightlyah)\-c the earl\- ccntur) le\-cls. Although ciiscrepancics het\veen these sets of figures are evident, they all point to the 1440s as a period of crisis, when income fell and unlet holdings increased in number. The common experience of the minor obcdientiaries in lhe first half of the decade rna~~ be conncctcd w.ith the fact that much of their income \tas dra\\,n hm tenements in the four small horoughs which no\+’ form the city of Durham. ” and that the sli,q-Shtl!.
later
trough
in the tithe
sent
a difference
between
situations. In conclusion, it agree w:ith Hatcher’s Mould lvere
appear fewer
people
mid-fifteenth fifty
or
1977:44).
This
may
urban
and
reprerural
years decline
is impossible not to assertion “that there
than
there
before” cannot
had
been
(Hatcher
be accurately
auantified. but it must have resulted in a population in 1448 less than half of the size of that in 1348. Equally certain is that outI
breaks of plague. or if not, of some equal11 effective biological killer, were primarily responsible. hIid-century, however, does seem to ha\,e been the low point in Durham, and as the century progressed the signs were of stability and then of modest growth.
Notes 1
I am indebted
rolls. the halmote court books, the hostillar’s account rulls. the almoner’s account rolls, the commoner’s account
rolls. The 177 bondlands were distributed as follow: Monkton 8. Harton 21. Southwick 10, South Pittinggon 8. Monk Hesledcn 16, Billingham 16. Co\vpen Bewley IS. hliddlestonc 12, Ferryhill 10. -) The mills \vcrc locatrd in \Vallsend. Nethct Heworth. \1’cstoe, Southlvick. East Rainton. North Pittington. Monk Heslcden. Billingham. \\~olviston, Ne\vton Be\vle)-, ;\yclifI’e. Kirk Merrington. Elyet. ,, The parishes \vere Jarrow. hIonk \\‘carmouth. Pittington. &Zonk Hcsleden. Billingham. :1ycliffe% Heighington. Kirk Mcrrington. :iII \verc extensive in towns 1‘ alps, ;area and included In total sixty-three The ten townships of ;\yclifTe parish were XyclifYe, \Voodham. Braffisrton, Ricknall, Prrston-leSkerne. Nunstainton. Hc\zorth. Ne\vton Ketton, Ne\\house. Grindon. II is interesting to note that fift) years carlicr. before the onset of Scottish raiding after the hattlc of Bannockhurn ( 1314), and hefbrc the errat famine of 13 13-l 7, the corn tithes of this rxuish Ld been worth about f 100 a vear. Similarly, the annual income from mills had I&en between flO0 and f 12.5. These levels were never again approached. and indeed recovery after 1330 \vas slow and far from complete by 1348. It is thcreforc clear that the pla~uc 1 j_ of 1349 struck a societ)- already seriously damaged Iq earlier disaster. R The present entry of Durham x~as formrd b! the merger of the bishop’s borough of Durham. the prior‘s boroughs of El\et and Crossgate and the bourough of Gilesgate controlled h) Kcpier Hospital. together with the area near the cathedral and the castle knw n as thr Baile!-.
-t
to be no doubt that there in the countryside in the
crntuq.
sixty
figures
to Mr A. J. Piper
for this informa-
tion. \Vallsrnd. \\‘illington, Over Heworth, Nether Heworth: Hedworth, Monkton, Jarro\v, Harton, i\‘estoc, South Shields, Southu-ick, Monk \\‘carmouth, Fulwell. Dalton-lc-Dale, East Rainton. t\‘est Rainton, Aloorsley. North Pittington, South Pittington, Monk Heslcden, Billingham. \Vol\-iston. Nebvton Bcwley, Xyrliffe, Burdon. Newton Ketton. hliddlcstone, LVestcrton. The first two townships, \\.allsend and \\‘illington, were on the north bank of the Tyne and thercfore in Northumherland, hut the) were members of the ancient Durham estate centred on Jarrob%. i These and all other unprinted manuscript sources used for this article are in the muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, housed in the Prior’s Kitchen. The rolls on which the names of dead customary tenants are recorded are in Locellus 1\.:146. 147a, 1471~: those containing the names of dead free tenants are in Locellus IV: 141 and Loccllus L-:78. Other manuscripts consulted are the bursar’s rentals, the bursar’s account rolls, the halmotr court
.,
Literature Bean, J. nl. \V. 1963. Plague. population and economic decline in England in the later middle ages. Economic history review, 2nd series 15. Dyer, C. 1980. Lords and peasants in a changing society. Cambridge. Dyer. C. 1984. The social and economic background to the rural rc\,olt of 1381. In: R. H. Hilton and T. H. Aston (eds.). The English rising of 1381, Cambridge. Gottfried. R. S. 1978. Epidemic disease in fifteenth century England: the medieval response and its demo,yraphic consequence. Leicestcr. Greenwcll, IV. (ed.) 1872. Feodarium prioratus Dunelmensis. Surtecs Society 58. Durham.
139
140