Enclosure in Wytham

Why enclose Wytham? Why then?

Robert Whittleray’s 1728 survey described the shortcomings of the manorial system being used to govern farming in Wytham and surrounding areas in the early 18th century. This system was designed to give those that worked the land access to various types of soils on both good and bad land, to ensure fairness. However, this was inefficient from a practical standpoint, as one individual’s land might be widely distributed, and thus required travelling long distances. Whittleray deemed it necessary to enclose the land - that is to subdivide and close off common land and distribute it to those that were considered as having rights to it[1]. [Kirby (2010) notes that] by making land more coherent, some tenants could have more opportunities to improve their farming practice and increase their land holdings. And indeed, the average amount of land held in Wytham and Seacourt shot up from 38 acres in the early 18th century to 77 acres in the early 19th century. However, poorer tenants that relied on common land to graze stock, gather wood, draw water, etc., found themselves on the short end of the stick.

Whittleray's Survey recommendations for Wytham

Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, MS. Top. Berks. b. 13

This is unlikely to be the main motivation behind enclosure. As mentioned in my previous blog, Whittleray’s enclosure recommendation was largely ignored until the Earls of Abingdon began the process of making Wytham their primary home. The enclosures of Cumnor, South Hinksey and Wytham were amongst the last during this time of enclosure by parliamentary act. In comparison, some parishes in the area were anciently enclosed, e.g., in the cases of Tubney or Besselsleigh, estimated to have happened in the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. In the case of the nearby estate Radley, which was under the ownership of Sir William Stonhouse at the time, enclosure occurred sometime before 1768, piecemeal[2]. The parish of Sunningwell (also under the Stonhouses) was probably 82% enclosed via Act in 1723/1724, [[according to the Berkshire Record Society (2000)]][3]. Bagley Wood, which was made part of Radley parish at the start of the 20th century, but before then was extra-parochial, had been enclosed more recently and controversially by St John’s College, to which it was sold in two halves midway through the 16th century. The vicarial (belonging to the Earl of Abingdon) and rectorial (belonging to the Earl of Harcourt) tithes of North Hinksey, were commuted for land in 1776, via Enclosure act.

Willoughby, the 4th Earl of Abingdon temporarily moved the family seat to Wytham, while the Rycote Mansion (the main family seat) was being restored after the tragic fire which took elder brother James at the age of ten[4]. Beforehand the Berties mainly resided at Rycote, and were generally absent from the area. The Earl invested £5,000 to remodel Rycote Mansion. However, the family was in a perilous financial situation, with £129,000 of debt being passed down. He wound up selling off Rycote family household goods & furnishings to Richard Way in January of 1779 for the sum of  £8,475 15s 6d[5], to address one of his debts. Items such as furniture, paintings & prints, china and linen were advertised to be sold off in a 5-day auction in July of 1779.

Sale catalogue of building materials from the demolition of Rycote House, 1807

Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, MS. D.D. Bertie c. 3/8

While the Earl lived at Wytham, he was involved in turnpiking the road over Wytham Hill to Eynsham from Botley causeway and funded the development of the Swinford Toll Bridge. The bridge became an important source of income for the Earl. He also increased revenue by charging rack-rents and entry fines into copyholds and leaseholds. High rents negatively impacted the poorer residents, as farmers had to keep wages low in order to pay them: this was especially pronounced in years with poor harvests. According to Hanson (1996), during his tenure he only began the process of enclosing land owned in the area by quartering some open fields in nearby Cumnor and allocating them to those tenants concerned. There is evidence to suggest from Mavor (who took a survey of the estate in 1807) that this was originally opposed by residents but later ‘acquiesced in’. Hanson (1996) speculated that this may have been undertaken as a result of some tenants’ inability to pay rising rents.

Montagu, Willoughby’s son, the 5th Earl of Abingdon, inherited a challenging financial situation,his father having spent a large amount of the family fortune. Montagu finished permanently moving the family seat at Wytham, remodelling Wytham ‘Abbey’, rebuilding the Church and bettering the landscape. In order to to this he demolished the Rycote Mansion and Cumnor Place in 1807 and 1811, respectively[6],[7].. Materials from Rycote were auctioned off and raised a sum of £1981 6s 4d. Cumnor Place had been largely abandoned by the Abingdons because of its "oppressive" atmosphere and used as a granary before it was demolished. This was infamously the same building where Amy Robsart died under mysterious circumstances. The materials and funds from these two historic houses were used to rebuild and to pay off debts. He also built a new road between Botley and Swinford.

He may have been motivated to enclose by the growing profits that farming yielded early on in the 19th century, though he may have experienced some difficulty with succeeding in this due to the post-war recession.

How did it happen? Who paid for it?

Enclosure was easier in Wytham where most of the land was let under rack-rents and was completed in two years in 1816, whereas six years were required for Cumnor. South Hinksey, at the time still part of Cumnor, was enclosed in 1814[8]. According to  Wordie (2000) enclosure via parliamentary act in Wytham included 1,912 acres of land (including Seacourt’s 814 acres), which accounted for most of the parish. The legal document pertaining to the enclosure of Wytham and Cumnor reported ‘about 2,000’ acres in Wytham and approx 5,200 acres enclosed in Cumnor (including South Hinksey)[9].

The cost of enclosure in Wytham fell squarely upon the Earl because he owned the lands. Via the parliamentary act the Earl could raise £3000 for the cost of enclosure for Wytham and £6000 for the cost of enclosure in Cumnor. In both of the enclosure documents for Wytham and Cumnor it is stated that no more than £5 could be raised per acre. This means that only 600 acres in Wytham and 1200 acres in Cumnor would be claimable. It remains unclear why there is such a large discrepancy between the actual land enclosed and the amount of land that the Earl could claim to raise funds. However, in the Cumnor document it is specified that the 1200 acres was land where the Earl was a “tenant for life”[10]. In cases where the Earl was not the owner in Cumnor, the leaseholders had to pay for enclosure, though he did provide a loan for this purpose.

Number of acres that could be used to raise money for enclosure via Parliamentary Act

Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, MS. Top. Berks. c. 38

The main expense of enclosure was double post and rail fencing, which cost 8s 9d per pole, a ‘pole’ here likely referring to a length (of hedge), not just a post. This was,

apparently, a small price to pay, likely because materials from the estate’s woodlands and nursery were supplied to complete this. Mounds, hedgerows and trees were used to divide the open land into more cohesive tenant holdings. The fencing and, in some cases, ditches and banks would prevent livestock from feeding on the hedge plants. Seacourt was extra-parochial, not contributing towards a church or for the poor, and was initially recommended to the Earl to be excluded from the enclosure bill. However, the Earl desired its inclusion to be able to privatise footpaths that people used to cross from Cumnor to and from Wytham. Common land below Wytham high wood was turned into closes. The Earl exchanged 149 acres of land for Burcott’s Piece on the hill in Wytham to contribute to Thomas Richards’ leasehold in nearby Farmoor. Around this time Northfield Farm likely replaced Manor Farm situated behind the modern day White Hart.

What were the effects?

Enclosure has had its supporters and critics since the 17th century. Its effect upon society and the economy has been a heavily debated topic. Midway through the 18th century, enclosure via parliamentary act was commonplace[11]. At the time the state favoured enclosure, as it was thought necessary to improve farming practice. Waste lands and common pastures, which were to be later portioned off to farmers, were considered to be over-used by the poor who relied on them. Those who used the commons to sustain themselves were labelled as ‘lazy’ and ‘impoverished’ and it was hoped that by enclosing common land, it would push them into employment[12].

Enclosure led to the development of larger aggregated farms, but resulted in fewer landowners and more tenants who had to rely on wage labour so that they could get by. The productivity which was achieved by enclosure and land amalgamation mostly resulted from needing less workers to tend to the fields, but it did not necessarily mean that these now unemployed workers would go on to work in manufacturing. Enclosure temporarily created jobs, as workers were needed to make ditches and hedges around enclosed land, but this activity finished within 5-10 years of enclosure[13]. Snell (1985) argued that enclosure may have had a particular negative effect on the availability of employment throughout the year. Where before enclosure women could work in the open fields on a more ‘part-time’ basis, the rise in men’s unemployment post-enclosure, led to less incentives to hire women.[14]

The labour surplus, the introduction of threshing machines, low wages and a couple of consecutive poor harvests led to the ‘Swing’ riots, especially prevalent in the south and east of England[15]. Rioting in Berkshire began in Thatcham when labourers were denied a wage increase. Upon their arrival at Henry Tull’s Crookham Park, the ringleaders were arrested and eventually taken to Reading Gaol [16]. In nearby Otmoor, a patch of wetland long considered common land came under threat of enclosure by the Churchill/Spencer family in 1801. It was attempted twice to drain and enclose the land but each attempt was met with the resistance of mobs. In 1815, enclosure was pushed through, it provided little immediate agricultural benefit. In 1830, emboldened by the acquittal of farmers causing damage to drainage works, another mob gathered to pull down the enclosure fencing. On the day of the St Giles’ fair, 44 rioters were arrested and taken to the Oxford gaol via paddy wagon for this[17]. It should be noted that the Earl of Abingdon was unaffected by the ‘Swing’ riots as he made rent concessions and offered charity as needed.

In the end, it is unlikely that enclosure in Wytham had the effect on improving farming practices of the land that Whittleray envisioned. In the 1840s, a commentator commended the pressure Lord Abingdon exerted on his tenants to pay their labourers a living wage, but reproached him for the primitive state of farming on his lands.

Bagley Wood, Common Rights and The Abingdons - A Case Study

Though enclosure was often a controversial and agitated process, this was generally not the case in Wytham. The Abingdons owned and controlled most of the land by the time parliamentary enclosures were well under-way. However, a fierce struggle over enclosure was happening only a few miles away, in Bagley Wood. The Earl was involved in it as a party with a kind of collateral interest in its outcome. This story was first told by Robert Sephton, a noted local historian who died in 2017, from whom this information is presented below[18].

Bagley Wood is located south-west of Oxford, about 5 miles from Wytham. It is split by the A4183 or the old turnpike road from Abingdon to Oxford. It has been under the management of St John’s College for over 450 years. Part of it was bought for the college by its founder Sir Thomas White for £270. The rest of the 200 acres was acquired later by the trustees of the college. West Wood and West Bagley were bought in 1619 from Lord Norreys of Rycote. Lord Norreys was the grandfather of Bridget Wray, the 4th Baroness Norreys, who married Montagu Bertie, the 2nd Earl of Lindsey, and their son James was created the first Earl of Abingdon in the 1680s. It is how the Berties came into the possession of various lands in Oxfordshire & (then) Berkshire, including Cumnor & Wytham.

In the early 19th century St John’s College began persecuting locals for exercising their rights of common in the woods.The rights that the locals were seeking to claim would have been pannage (allowing pigs to forage for beechmast and acorns), estovers (collecting bracken or firewood), turbary (removing peat for the hearth), and piscary (fishing), whereas villagers in Cumnor and Wytham had the right to collect furze and fern (belonging in the “estovers” category) from certain parts of the said Commons or waste grounds.

The college may have begun persecuting locals in order to sell timber from the woods undisturbed. However, there were several factors which lacked clarity around this issue.

For starters, although the college owned most of the wood, it did not own all of it and it was unclear for which parts it could not deny common rights. It should be noted that commoners would only have been interested in maintaining their rights of common and would not contest the ownership of the wood as long as they were allowed to exercise their rights. It was only upon persecution that the right of ownership was brought into question.

To add another complication, the right to six oak trees per year for heating and maintenance was granted to the college after the Civil War by Charles II. However, it was unclear for which parts of the wood the college had these limited rights, as opposed to ‘rights of soil’, which would entail taking sand, gravel, stone, coal and other minerals.Some locals were also uncertain about the distinction between Bagley Wood and Bagley Common and if rights of common could only be exercised for the latter. A further uncertainty was Lord Abingdon selling his timber rights at some point to St John’s, which was revealed in 1849 upon enclosure. It is not known when this occurred, but presumably it happened after the disputes began, as this was never used in the college’s defence.

Several convictions and, in some cases repeat convictions, occurred from the commoners trying to practice their rights of common, where the judges agreed with the college that they had no rights to claim in those particular parts of the woods.

Thomas Pratt, a landowner and merchant, began to challenge the college in 1835 by coming into the woods and shooting rabbits. When accused of trespassing, he defended his rights of common. He later appealed at the Berkshire Quarter Sessions, bringing forth two arguments. The first was that he had bought rights of common from one Mr Curtis of Hinksey, the practice for commoners to be able to sell specific rights to outsiders  being long recognised. The second was that the Earl of Abingdon and not the college was Lord of the Manor in the area where he undertook the shooting. Pratt wound up being tried for shooting rabbits even though the initial charge was ‘trespassing’, which was ideal for him, because he sought to magnify the alleged offence so he could be tried by jury. This way the rights of the land could be disputed. Unfortunately he was convicted for shooting the rabbits, and the issue of ownership of the land was deemed as immaterial. Pratt continued to engage in this offense several times, getting charged and convicted for it. In one hearing, Lord Abingdon’s Keeper (responsible for managing land for the benefit of hunting, shooting and fishing) and Hayward (responsible for manning fences and gates for the lord) both challenged the colleges’ claims over rights of common. This may have been a result of Lord Abingdon feeling that previous verdicts were threatening his rights related to the parts of the wood under his ownership. In the next hearing, the Earl’s keeper and his brother Hon. Mr Bertie were both there to testify that the Earl was the Lord of the Manor where the shooting occured. However, Lord Abingdon’s legal adviser was also there to declare that the Earl had “given up all right that he may have to Bagley Common to St John’s College”. That day Pratt was convicted.

Lord Abingdon’s legal adviser complained that Pratt had breached legal etiquette by not serving the attorney with the summons and explaining the evidence required and providing an approximate amount of the expenses that responding to the summons would entail. Prat took responsibility for this, as his own solicitor was away when he handed the summons to Lord Abingdon’s butler. Pratt continued to enter the woods, get charged, convicted and appealed after that. He maintained that he had rights of common in that area and that he had the Earl’s permission to shoot.

By February of 1839, the college was taking more severe measures against Pratt, intending to commit him to the Fleet Prison for breach of injunction for encouraging tenants near the woods to cut down timber in Bagley Wood. A judge felt that Pratt was aiding and abetting this and even distributed beer to those loading the wood to take away. In the same court hearing a letter that he wrote to Lord Abingdon a year prior was used as evidence against Pratt. He had no reason to believe that the Earl was against him, as he was fighting for his manorial rights. However, he might have overstepped by directly addressing the Earl as a commoner and insinuating from his use of language in the letter that he was breaking the law on the Earl’s behalf. Pratt was committed to the Fleet, but never attended prison, disappearing from the district for several years.

Eventually, the college enclosed the wood through a parliamentary act in 1848. In Wytham, the high wood had already been transformed into closes by the time of enclosure, while the inhabitants of Cumnor lost their grazing rights in Cumnor Meadow as it was split into lots.

In the end, it was Thomas Pratt who seemed to have had the last word. Bagley Wood has recently been opened up to the public for free access, after having previously operated under a limited permit scheme.