MEADOWS,PASTURES AND GRAZING LANDS IN AND AROUND ROMSEY TO 1808 ENCLOSURE.

ROMSEY EXTRA

​

​

​

· 1. The earliest traces of temporary and permanent habitation are to be found at Braishfield and Toothill.

· 2. From the time of the Saxon invasion to 1086 a farming estate developed in Romsey town, as described in Section 1. At the same time farmsteads were established in the outlying areas between the town and the surrounding woods. These informal encroachments of pasture and grazing lands continued until the formal Enclosure Act of 1804.

· 3. Between 1086 and 1544 there was a modest increase in numbers of farmsteads but it is probable that a greater amount of common pasture and grazing land was taken in for individual farmsteads; there would also have been an increase in the number of smaller subsistence holdings. There were no large sheep farms; local farmers practised mixed farming.

· 4. After the Dissolution two large estates co-existed. The smaller one of these was centred on Broadlands, the larger one – the non- Broadlands estate was owned by John Foster and his successors. These two continued to take over the common pasture and grazing lands to create farm tenancies with rights of grazing. All rights came from the owners of the estates and remained with them. Both estates were rigidly controlled and there is no evidence of common ownership of any lands. There were some small privately owned estates but these were often bought up by one of the two large estates. There is no evidence of centralisation around large houses or village greens. Ashfield might be an exception to this but further research is necessary. There were no squatters.

· 5. From the end of the seventeenth century items recorded in the manorial rolls show that farmsteads were encroaching on the “ wastes” below the woods which had provided brushwood for fire and wood for house and cart repairs as well as grazing. It is probable that part of Baddesley Common was enclosed for a profit making rabbit warren.

6. By the time of the formal Enclosure Act most of the land left to enclose was marginal.

DETAILS.

· 1. A late Mesolithic form of pit dwelling has been excavated at Broom Hill near Braishfield. Toothill was possibly a hill fort in about 1000 B.C. which would have contained more than one homestead. During the Roman occupation a substantial villa estate was built at Braishfield.

· 2. A large estate was provided for the abbey for potential arable, meadow, wasteland and wood. Place names indicate Saxon settlement outside the town e.g. “ worthy” as in Halterworth suggest a small enclosed farm or a piece of land farmed but not necessarily with a dwelling place; “ feld” as in Ashfield – light woodland which has been cleared; “ leah” as in Woodley – a clearing in the wood; “ham” a small settlement as in

Cupernham. The Domesday survey records five “freemen” with their own holdings who would have held the land from the abbess but were not usually expected to provide manual services on the abbey`s home farm. There is no indication of the geographical positions of these holdings within the abbey`s large estate nor of the types of land included within the holdings. Holdings by freemen on other estates in the Test Valley mention ploughland and meadow but rarely pasturage or grazing land. One exception is Ralph in North Baddesley who had grazing land “ herbagio” worth 10s. This is probably because pasture and grazing lands were of much less financial value and with few enclosed holdings there was a plentiful and undisputed supply. There was also plentiful woodland taxed at 40 pigs where pigs could graze. – One of the largest in the Somborne Hundred.

· 3. During this period there were growing markets for crops and livestock. The Statute of Merton 1235 allowed landowners to take in wasteland with the proviso that there should be sufficient pasturing left for the use of other manorial tenants who had grazing rights. By 1316 there were hamlets described as settlements in Cupernham, Halterworth, Whytenharpe (Whitenap), Asshenfelde ( Ashfield) and Wopbury ( Woobury) which covered Toothill and Luzborough. These seem to have been dispersed rather that nucleated settlements; the abbey estate had not been divided, there is no evidence of demesne land or communal strip farming. ( An exception to this might have been the watermeadows at Fishlake). Tenants paid tithes to the abbey and were obliged to grind their grain at the Lady`s mills in the town. There is a description of a “workland”- usually about ten acres held by William Streeche in 1444. It consisted of six acres of wheat, five acres of barley, one acre of peas and one acre of oats. In other items there are some mentions of pasture - John Maskell in 1434 had thirteen acre4s of arable land and two acres of pasture; in 1428 William Skyllingham had lands, tenements , moors and pastures. The word “moor” was often used for rough uncultivated land. The excerpts from the manorial documents given by Latham and Liveing record no incidents of villagers misusing or overstocking pastures and wastes . Payment for pannage for pigs is sometimes recorded which would indicate careful management of the woods by the abbey officials. In 1544 the largest area of the abbey estate was bought by John Foster and his partner. In the sale, which excluded Lee and the demesne the number of individual holdings had increased to 19 – not an enormous increase in number over 500 years. Of these 6 were in Cupernham, 7 in Ashfield, 2 in Halterworth, 1 in Whitenap, 2 in Woodley and 1 in Braishfield. Unlike most of the town holdings listed they are described as having “feedings” e.g. Elizabeth Thomas in Cupernham “all the lands,tenements, meadows, pastures and feedings”. Does this mean land for grazing enclosed within the holding or the right to graze animals on the remaining wastes not yet taken over by individual tenants?

· 4.

· In the smaller and more enclosed post Dissolution Broadlands estate, pasture and grazing must have been limited. Some would have been gained when in an exchange of lands in 1560 the Broadlands estate acquired the seven holdings in Ashfield from John Foster; but more grazing land was needed. By 1736 when the Broadlands estate was bought by the first Lord Palmerston it had the right to pasture 400 sheep on Baddesley Common. The owners of both estates encouraged the clearing of common pastures and

“wastes” for individual holdings and this policy was welcomed by enterprising villagers. The Hearth Tax of 1665 listed in Cupernham 26 householders paying tax and 26 non- paying, in Woodbury and Ashfield 25 paying and 8 non-paying. If those with three or more hearths are considered to be farmhouses there were five in Cupernham and five in Woodbury. This is no increase from 1544 although they might have increased in acreage and there are a large number of smaller holdings and probably cottages for farm workers.The “wastes” and grazing lands would now be those areas between the farm holdings and the woods surrounding Romsey to the east and the south. As the number and amount of enclosure increased the “wastes” became more in demand for grazing. Abbeis Common Wood, or Abbotswood contained 400 acres, half of which were “wastes”; Woodley coppice contained three acres and there is also mention of coppices at Halterworth and Timsbury; Austrey Common Wood along the Romsey to Southampton Road and south of Hoe Lane contained 50 acres of which 20 were “waste” and Holbourne Wood nearby had 45 acres of which 15 were “waste”.

· 5. The first evidence of control of the “wastes” comes from the customs of the non-Broadlands estate written out from 1678. No tenant could put more sheep out to graze than he could “ levant et couchant” i.e. than he could contain within his own holding. This would be to protect the rights of the tenant as well as the owner. Anyone making inroads on the common grazing lands was brought before the Manor Court. In 1720 John Marriner was fined for keeping more sheep than he could “ levant et couchant”; In 1724 farmer Jarman (Jermyn) was brought before the court for taking a backside out of the “wastes” to the prejudice of the tenants and so was Ambrose Carter “ for digging sand and not levelling the hole”. There were times when encroachment was permitted by the lord – Ratteys at Braishfield. Jarmans at Jermyns Lane and Hardings at Toothill. This last tenant leased “ a piece of waste to make bricks and tiles”. John Parker at Ashfield was given several leases from 1723-1730 “ with liberty of enclosing the Green and lanes leading to it”. He was also given “ common of pasture in all the woods and coppices formerly or hereafter to be taken in out of the Common Woods”. This was only with the lord`s consent. In 1718 John Falkener was presented at the court “ for erecting a cottage upon the waste to the detriment of lord and tenants”. There are no records of any permanent encroachments without permission on the Romsey lands. This is in contrast to North Stoneham where, by 1782, 24 families had built cottages on the common land without permission.

It is also probable that land was enclosed on the Romsey side of Baddesley Common for a formal profit making rabbit warren. See details in a post script.

· 6. The clearest evidence of former pasture and grazing lands comes from the Enclosure Act of 1808 and the maps and schedules attached to it. The amount of new enclosure approved by the Act is obscured to some extent as the opportunity was taken to make legal old enclosures and by exchanges of land made by the landowners to consolidate their holdings. There are references to “old” or “ ancient” enclosures along Braishfield Road, Jermyns Farm Road, Ganger Hill, Cupernham Road, Halterworth Lane , Back Lane ( now Woodley Lane ) and Hoe Lane. Some of

these are referred to as “ enclosed arable” including one plot numbered 155 with the land`s name given as Wild Ground.

Only freeholders owning land with rights of grazing on common land were

allocated new enclosures. The one exception was a member of the Withers family who claimed by right of copyhold. In addition Elizabeth Fleming, the owner of the Broadlands estate was awarded over 56 acres “ In lieu of her rights and interests in and to the soil of the said Commons and wastelands within the said manor”. Palmerston did not claim these rights. In 1781 the second Lord Palmerston had asked his agent, William Damon to look at the Broadlands title deeds. He reported back “ it does not appear that Broadlands has any manorial rights”, i.e. in Romsey Extra. Under the Enclosure Act Palmerston was awarded allotments because he owned freehold land with grazing rights.

Apart from the two main landowners there were approximately thirty four other freeholders claiming allotments in lieu of rights of grazing in the part of Romsey Extra under consideration. Amongst them was a family of butchers, perhaps needing land for animals, several brewers who had perhaps bought land to grow malt barley but also grocers, millers and manufacturers with businesses based in the town. Some were entrepreneurs who had bought up a number of plots with rights, including Thomas Warner, Palmerston`s solicitor and George Doswell, a surveyor. All claimed for rights in either Abbotswood or Carters Common; no other grazing areas were mentioned. This would have been an extensive acreage. At that time the area given the general name of Abbotswood would have extended down from Sandy Lane to Cupernham Lane. Carters Common was a tract of land from Ampfield Road bounded on the one side by Baddesley Common , on the other side by Highwood Lane then called Luzborough Lane and behind Luzborough Farm to Hoe Lane.

The Fleming estate established successful farms on its allocated lands taking on prosperous tradesmen as tenants who were able to make use of the new agricultural methods and machinery to make the land more productive; but much of the land enclosed was of poor agricultural quality. One plot along Belbins Road was described as having “ thin gravelly soil”. Four parcels of land containing gravel pits went to the Surveyors of the highways in Cupernham, all on Abbotswood Common; another three gravel pits, on Carters Common went to the Surveyors of Highways for the tithing of Woodbury.

POSTSCRIPT: RABBITS, RABBITS, RABBITS.

Re- examining historical documents from a slightly different viewpoint can sometimes highlight events which were previously ignored. The existence of a large warren on the boundaries between North Baddesley and Romsey is well known but a review of the exploitation through the centuries of pasture and grazing lands has raised the probability that there existed a planned and managed warren for the business of farming rabbits in Romsey.

In the middle ages the warren was an area of land preserved for the domestic or commercial rearing of game – not a piece of wasteland on which wild rabbits lived in underground burrows. The right of “ free warren” was the right to keep and kill beasts of the warren

including hare and rabbit and it was illegal for anyone else to attempt to do so. In 1444 Thomas Welynow placed snares in one of the abbey`s warrens in Wobbury and took many hares for which he had to pay restitution. No mention of rabbits was found in the medieval documents.

Hares and rabbits are different animals. Hares are more difficult to contain and live above ground so hare warrens are more like sanctuaries where they are encouraged to live and breed. Hares are indigenous but the first mention of rabbits in England dates from 1135. Rabbits were not as fecund in the Middle Ages as they are today. They were fragile and uncomfortable in the new, cold environment ; fertility was low and mortality was high. The rabbit population in the Middle Ages was less than one tenth the size it would reach in the nineteenth century and most of these were in controlled rabbit warrens. In the seventeenth century was still regarded as an important source of estate income. They were valued for both their meat and their fur. Labour costs were low in comparison with arable farming and a period of rising wages led to an increased demand for meat and for better clothing. Silver, grey and black fur decorated fashionable clothing and there was a lucrative London market. Skins were treated, made into felt and exported to Calais and the Low Countries.

Large commercial rabbit warrens appeared by the thirteenth century. These were surrounded by walls or banks to prevent rabbits escaping and to prevent others, with less suitable fur, from getting in. They tended to be in areas where arable land was limited because rabbits could do great damage to crops and evoked considerable hostility from farmers. They needed dry well drained habitats and to provide the right conditions artificial burrows were often created. These were given the name, “ pillow mounds” by O.G.S. Crawford. He was the first to recognize them, although he does not seem to have recorded them around Romsey. ( Drawing of women snaring rabbits from a pillow mound).

Warrens were diverse in size and structure. Large open warrens might include some small enclosures containing one or more mounds; other warrens were sub- divided to allow parts to be cultivated either periodically or for the production of fodder crops such as turnips.

From the fifteenth century on warrens were usually leased to professional warreners. The warrener lived in a lodge, near at hand, to prevent poaching and structural damage.

( References: Mark Bailey Ph.D. thesis; Tom Williamson Rabbits ,Warrens and Archaeology).

Evidence for a Commercial Warren in Romsey.

Henry Liveing in his “ Records of Romsey Abbey” found the words “ Luzborough Magna and Parva with a small house” in the manorial court rolls between 1405 and 1472. The word “Inlisborough” was associated with it. It is not listed with earlier settlements found in Cupernham, Halterworth and Woobury. Later maps show the area extending from the present Luzborough Public House and the Abbey trading estate, crossing Botley Road to the present Highwood Lane – earlier called Luzborough lane. This and a part of Baddesley Common later called Carters Common would fit with the physical features suitable for a warren.

No mention of Luzborough was found in the Bills of Sale at the time of the Dissolution but this was part of the estate bought by John Foster in 1544 and remained with his successors until the sale of 1911. The first written mention of Luzborough was found in 1601 when John Mitchel was said to be “ of Luzborough”.

Another mention comes from 1624. The owner of the estate ,John More had died and his land and property was divided between his two daughters, one of whom had married Samuel Dunch and the other Edward Hooper. The agreement was that the Hoopers would inherit his Romsey estate but there was some disagreement with Walter Godfrey and others “ concerning a warren at Romsey”. The result of the court case was not given but later history shows that the Hoopers took possession.

During the seventeenth century there were several encroachments when parts were leased for 99 years or three lives for a money rent and a couple of good capons at Christmas suggesting that the land was more suitable for omnivores such as chicken rather than for pasture or arable.

One of these leases in 1616 was to Thomas Carter, Robert Carter and William Carter for 51 acres near Luzborough barn. The Carters were husbandmen from Lee and would have made a living from a small acreage. At Luzborough they prospered and became “ gentlemen”.

The strongest evidence for a planned warren comes in 1694 when Edward Fleming of North Stoneham leased their Romsey warren and lodge to Ambrose Grove for 99 years or three lives on consideration of £ 84, a 1.0s rent and two couples of “ sweet coneys” at Michaelmas . Coney was the original name given to a rabbit although it later came to be used for a young one; a “ sweet coney” would have had better tasting meat and come from a rabbit farm. Ambrose Grove was also the tenant of Great Woodley farm so would probably have employed a warrener to live in the lodge. Later wills made by the Grove family give no mention of it.

It could be that another family had taken over. In 1724 when James Carter died he was able to call himself “ a gentleman of Luzborough” and his will reflects his prosperity. In addition to properties scattered throughout Romsey he left substantial sums of money to his children and many of the accoutrements of wealth including a spinet and a violin. An intriguing item mentions his quarter share in “ a sloop or smack”. These were small working boats – a sloop was used for freight although smacks were usually fishing boats. He could perhaps have been exporting goods to the Continent.

A more direct connection is made in the will of his son Ambrose Carter in 1754. He also called himself “ a gentleman of Luzborough” and had valuable assets of gold and silver items plus a tea chest, tea tongs and teaspoons. In his will he thanks his nephew for assisting him in his “ farming business warren and other affairs”. The dwelling house is not specified but it is possible that it was Luzborough farm, now a Public House, which is a substantial building dating from the seventeenth century.

After this the connection is lost. The second Viscount Palmerston bought the Carter estate in 1774 but by then rabbit farms were less profitable. Rabbits had escaped into the

countryside, adapted to the climate and proliferated. In any case the Palmerstons were more interested in pheasant shooting. Romsey warren was still sufficiently important to be marked on the eighteenth century maps made by Taylor, Milne and Foden.

However there was still a warrener living on the edge of the Common. The will of Henry Bell, warrener, of the parish of Romsey Extra survives from 1809. He was not wealthy but possessed silver teaspoons and ,“ a clock standing in the kitchen” to leave to his sons. Unfortunately nothing is said about his working life.

Carters Common or the Warren, as it was named in the Enclosure Act of 1808, was divided into lots and became farms mostly under the ownership of the Willis Fleming Estate. On the 1819 map Warren farm is marked extending from the Luzborough cross roads on both side of Highwood Lane. The tenancy had been given to Daniel Bell, the son of Henry Bell and his homestead is clearly marked alongside the road; this could be the original warrener`s lodge.

Place names can often give other evidence. The Bell name was still attached to fields on the former Common on the 1845 Tithe Map, although by then there was another tenant. “Burrows” were often written down as “ berries “, “ burys” or “ boroughs”. Nearby there are two fields called Upper Baddesley Berry and Lower Baddesley Berry. The origin of the word “Luzborough” has always been elusive. Could it now be explained as a corruption of “ Lady`s Burrow” ?

Further research is necessary. Do we have amongst our members any des