Haver and Stirks: Farming in Austwick from 1550 to 1750

Introduction

The documentary evidence for this change is scant. However, probate inventories provide some useful clues. Inventories are lists drawn up by neighbours of the possessions of a deceased person who had left a will. They list and value the testator’s furniture and household possessions, sometimes room by room, the animals and crops as well as any farm equipment. They date from the 1530s and continued into the 19th century. The late Stan Lawrence devoted much of his life to researching local history and transcribed over 70 of these inventories from the Lancashire Record Office relating to Austwick, dating from the 1550s to the 1740s. These have formed the basis of the following analysis and the light they shed on the changes in farming from just after the dissolution of the monasteries to the agricultural revolution.

Analysis

TABLE 1 Number of inventories and net values of estates
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of inventories	7	23	28	13
Net estate (£)	11 to 155	1 to104	2 to 210	0 to502
Average (£)	54	31	56	79

In the sixteenth century the sample included just one woman but all had been engaged in farming in that they kept animals or grew crops. In the first half of the seventeenth century the proportion of women was similar (14%) and all but two of the group had been engaged in farming. However, these two still kept hens. For the second half of that century the proportion of women remained at 14%, but nearly a third of the sample were not engaged in farming, though some of them owned a horse or kept a single cow. In the final group the proportion of women was unchanged. Three of the group were not farmers, though one of them still owned farm equipment. The other two were women who did not keep any animals.

The net value of the estates varied considerably in all four groupings. The richest person was Arthur Ingilby who died in 1701. If his data are excluded the highest value for the eighteenth century group is reduced to £145, which is similar to the maximum found in the preceding periods. Similarly the average falls to £44. This suggests that due to the small size of the samples the data for one individual can skew the results. Nevertheless, it appears that the average net values of estates were similar from 1550 to 1750, with the exception of a possible dip at the start of the seventeenth century.

Sheep

TABLE 2 Data for sheep
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries	7 out of 7	8 out of 23	7 out of 28	7 out of 13
Value of sheep	£2 to £12	14/- to £24	3/- to £20	£1- £14
No. of sheep	11 to 51	4 to113	1 to104	7 to 38
Value per animal (s/d)	wethers 1/7	sheep 3/7 to	hogg 3/7	3/- to 7/4
	ewes 2/4	5/4	sheep 3/- to 4/-
	lambs 2/7

Cattle

Table 3 is a summary of the inventory data. In the Tudor sample all but one of the group owned cattle, which accounted for just over a third of the net value of the estates. In the first half of the 17th century all but four of the sample kept cattle, which again accounted for a third of the estates. Though there was a further decline in the proportion of people rearing cattle the average value remained at about a third.

TABLE 3 Data for cattle
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries	6 out of 7	19 out of 23	19 out of 28	10 out of 13
Value of cattle (£)	4 to 42	1 to 32	1 to 92	7 to 222
Average (£)	19	13	16	38
No. of oxen	0 to 7	0 to 6	0 to 12	0 to10
No. of cattle	2 to 36	0 to 21	0 to 26	0 to 54
Value per animal(£/s)
oxen	£2 to £3	£2/3 to £3/3	£2/10 to £4/13	£4 to £5
kyne	£1/18 to £2	£1/15 to £2/10	£2 to £3	£2 to £3/10
stirke	£0/6 to £1	£0/13 to £1/3	£0/15 to £1/0	£1/10
stotte	£1/1	£2/16	£1/15 to £2	£3 to £3/10
calf	-	£0/8	£0/7 to £0/10	£1 to £1/10

A distinction can be made between draught animals and other cattle. In the earliest sample all but two of the deceased owned oxen or stotes. As both of these people also owned corn, which presumably they had grown, it would suggest that they either hired oxen for ploughing or else used horses for the job. In the next sample only four inventories listed oxen among the possessions. The remaining farmers did not always possess horses, or possessed only a single mare, so it seems probable that they borrowed or hired their neighbours’ oxen. In the latter half of the seventeenth century the number of farmers owning oxen remained unchanged. John Paley, who died in 1650/51, owned a total of twelve oxen which were valued at £56. This amounted to about 30% of his net estate and was a significant investment. In the next century only three inventories listed oxen, with ten beasts being owned by Arthur Ingilby. Again this suggests a continuing decline in the numbers owning oxen with little evidence that their role was being performed by horses.

Analysis of the inventories shows that rearing cattle, other than oxen, was an important part of farming throughout the period. This was both for milk production as well as beef. From the inventories it is often possible to calculate the value of the different types of cattle. For example, in the Tudor period oxen were worth between £2 and £2.17s each. In the next sample they ranged from £2.3s to £3.3s each. In the final half of the seventeenth century values ranged from £2.10s to £4.3s. The final sample shows that prices had risen with the beasts being worth from £4 to £5 each. There seems to have been a steady increase in their value over the period. This may explain the decline in the numbers of farmers keeping oxen. If you had a limited amount of land to plough then keeping oxen would be an expensive investment; it would make more sense to invest in rearing cattle for beef or cows for milk.

The values of the other cattle have also been listed in Table 3 and it is clear that there is a wide range in values. This is possibly due to the age and condition of the animals. In one inventory ‘one old poore, lame cow’ was valued at £1.3s.4d, when in the same period other cows were valued at £2.10s each.

Crops

TABLE 4 Data for crops and wool
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries	7 out of 7	16 out of 23	16 out of 28	9 out of 13
Value of crops(£/s)	£3 to £33	£0/11 to £11	£0/10 to £27	£0/10 to £50
Average (£)	10	4	10	16
Values	1 acre (haver) £2:	½ acre (oats) 4s ½ acre (barley) £1
Hemp/wool (no..entries)	4 out of 7	10 out of 23	9 out of 28	1 out of 13

In the Tudor period crops were listed in all the inventories, with an average value of £10. In the next sample a smaller proportion of farmers grew crops and the average value fell to £4 before recovering to £10 in the second half of the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century a greater proportion of farmers were growing crops but when the estate of Arthur Ingilby was excluded the average value had fallen to £3. This could be due to a fall in grain prices, a decline in the acreage being planted or a combination of the two.

Although not strictly a crop, wool was listed in a number of inventories throughout the period. However, this would depend on the time of death of the farmer and the time of shearing. In some cases wool was listed but the farmer did not have any sheep. This may suggest that wool had been bought for spinning or weaving. This is supported by the listing of looms in three inventories between 1600 and 1649. John Frankland, who died in 1650, was described as a webster and possessed wool and cloth valued at £20. In 1710 William Beecroft died leaving wool, cloth and looms valued at £9. He was described as a clothier. It is interesting that hemp, ‘lynin’ and flax appear more frequently in the inventories than wool. Either hemp and flax were grown locally or were purchased to be spun and woven as part of a way of supplementing farm incomes.

Farm Equipment

TABLE 5 Values of farm equipment
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries	5 out of 7	14 out of 23	19 out of 28	9 out of 13
Value of farm equip.	6s to £10	2s to £2	13s to £2	10s to £15
Values	plough geare 6s	hurroweing geare 3s/4d axeltries 2s weale 8s 2 dickeing spades 20d spades 10d picke & 2 hames 1s	carts £1/15/0 plough gear £1/10/0 harrow & plough geare 16s/8d

Horses, Pigs And Hens

TABLE 6 Data for horses
		1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries		7 out of 7	14 out of 23	17 out of 28	9 out of 13
Value of horses (£)		1 to 13	1 to 11	2 to 24	2 to 40
No. of animals		1 to7	0 to 6	0 to 6	0 to10
Values(£/s/d)	Mare	£1/3/4	£1/16/8 to £4	£2 to £4	£1 to £4
	Horse			£6

Pigs were regularly listed in inventories of all periods. However it is clear from Table 7 that not every household kept pigs and, if they did, only limited numbers were reared. There was one exception: John Granger kept a herd of pigs valued at £12. A lack of woodland in the area for foraging may explain the low number of swine. On the other hand hens were far more commonly kept. Numbers were rarely specified and the values listed were modest. Stephen Procter had six hens valued at 2s. By the 18th century poultry were no longer listed: perhaps their value was so low that the valuers ignored them.

TABLE 7 Data for pigs and hens
	1550-99	1600-49	1650-99	1700-49
No. of entries(pigs)	2 out of 7	15 out of 23	8 out of 28	4 out of 13
Values (s)	10 to 240	2 to 13	6 to 40	10 to 40
No. of entries(hens)	6 out of 7	13 out of 23	7 out of 28	0 out of 13
Values (s)	1-4	1-3	1-6	-

Discussion

Analysis demonstrates that farming in Austwick was not static between 1550 and 1750. Various trends have been identified: a decline in sheep rearing, the dominance of cattle (whether for beef or milk) in the economy and the continuing importance of arable agriculture, along with the development of other employment to supplement incomes. The shift from sheep to cattle is supported by studies elsewhere [Whyte and Shaw, 2013]. Studies of Nidderdale also show a decline in sheep-rearing and the development of the domestic textile industry [Turner, 1995]. In the case of Nidderdale the change was attributed to a reduction in the size of agricultural holdings. The average medieval messuage was said to be about 20 acres which was enough to support a family with a small surplus. By the early seventeenth century the average holding had fallen to 12 acres with copyholds repeatedly divided to provide an inheritance for younger sons. Even with common grazing rights this was not sufficient to support a family without an additional income. Hence the growth of the linen industry.

This was not necessarily the case in Austwick. Unfortunately we do not have details of the acreage of individual farms. Whilst this is available from the Tithe apportionment of 1851 and the census of the same date there are no data for earlier periods. The Court Baron records provide information about the exchange of land but not the actual size of holdings. An examination of Austwick wills, however, does not support the continued division of farms to provide for younger sons. For example when William Browne died in 1663, he left his eldest son, Adam, all his land except Moore Close, which was left to his other son and daughter unless Adam paid them £5. Similarly, when Robert Armitstead died he left his nephew all his customary lands and tenant right. He also made provision of cash rather than land for his other nephew, and sister as well as other relatives. To meet these bequests the main beneficiary may have had to dispose of land. However, this is not supported by the Court Baron records. Alternatively the main beneficiary may have borrowed money locally to pay for the other bequests.

The peasant proclivity for hoarding money under the bed does not seem to have existed in Austwick. The probate inventories show that only small sums of ready cash were kept. From the start of the seventeenth century the inventories show that the deceased may have had debts, credits or both. For example, William Yeadon, who died in 1631, had goods valued at £3 but was owed £10.9s. He possessed no animals or sources of income so probably lived off the interest he charged on the loans. At the other extreme Isabel Yeadon, who died in 1650, had goods valued at £59, was owed £158 and in turn had borrowed £6 leaving a net estate of £210. In Lincolnshire the probate inventories showed that one third had debts or credits [Holderness, 1976]. Part of this borrowing may have been due to problems of liquidity between sowing and harvest, fluctuations in prices and yields, as well as a source of capital for the purchase of stock or land. Far from hoarding, there is plenty of evidence for redistributing idle capital towards the economically active or those in difficulty in the community. This is an avenue for the further exploration of the economics of a farming community.

Another area for further investigation is that of the role of oxen and their part in the rural economy. Research on medieval England has demonstrated that while horses were more expensive to keep than oxen they were also more versatile on the farm [Langdon, 1982]. Nationally, by the late 16th century horses were said to comprise more than half of the draught herd. By the 19th century oxen appear to have been of little importance, with the minor exception of the Yorkshire Dales [Collins, 2010]. Analysis of a wider sample of inventories may provide further insights.

References

• Collins, E.J.T., 2010. The latter-day history of draught oxen in England, 1770-1964. Agr. H. Rev., 58: 191-216
• Holderness, B., 1976. Credit in English rural society before the nineteenth century, with special reference to the period 1650-1720. Agr. H. Rev. 24: 97-109
• Langdon, J., 1982. The economics of horses and oxen in medieval England Agr. H. Rev. 30: 31-40
• Lawrence, S., 2003. Austwick agriculture. North Craven Heritage Trust J., 11-12
• Turner, M., 1995. Kith and kin: Nidderdale families 1500 - 1750. York: Summerbridge Tutorial Group
• Whyte, I. and Shaw, H., 2013. Post-medieval vegetation and landscape change in Upper Ribblesdale: resilience and stability in farming.in Medieval Studies in the Yorkshire Dales, ed. R. D. Martlew, York: PLACE