Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T14:21:30.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labourers in late sixteenth-century England: a case study from north Norfolk [Part I]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

A. Hassell Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Continuity and Change , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 11 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Hoskins, W. G., The Midland peasant: the economic and social history of a Leicestershire village (London, 1957)Google Scholar; Spufford, M., Contrasting communities: English villagers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Cambridge, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ravensdale, J. R., Liable to floods: village landscape on the edge of the Fens a.d. 450–1850 (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar; Hey, D. G., An English rural community: Myddle under the Tudors and Stuarts (Leicester, 1974)Google Scholar; Wrightson, K. and Levine, D., Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling 1525–1700 (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar; Howell, C., Land, family and inheritance in transition: Kibworth Harcourt 1280–1700 (Cambridge, 1983).Google Scholar

2 For examples of such work see: Everitt, A. M., ‘Farm labourers’, in Thirsk, J. I., ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, 4, 1500–1640 (Cambridge, 1967) 396–465Google Scholar; Kussmaul, A. S., Servants in husbandry in early-modern England (Cambridge, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 I acknowledge advice and encouragement from Dr Alan Macfarlane as well as stimulation from his book Reconstructing historical communities (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar

4 Some attention is given below to the organisation of building craftsmen, but only in so far as this is necessary to provide a context within which labourers worked. Craftsmen constitute a quite distinct segment of village society and are not treated per se here.

5 Smith, A. Hassell, Baker, Gillian M. and Kenny, R. W., eds., The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey Volume 11556–1577 (Centre of East Anglian Studies, Norwich, 1979) xv–xviii and xxxvii–xli.Google Scholar

6 This paragraph is based on an analysis of a field book of 1585 (Norfolk Record Office [hereafter NRO,] Raynham Hall, MS box 79 no. 3).

7 These figures have been calculated by creating family profiles for 1585 and 1594 (see part II, Appendix I) and applying a multiplier of 4.5.

8 For the focus of this paragraph I am indebted to Dr Joan Thirsk who kindly allowed me to read her unpublished paper on ‘New-style demesne fanning in early-modern England’.

9 Bacon Papers I, various references.Google Scholar

10 NRO, Bradfer-Lawrence, VII b (5) sheep-reeve accounts 1577–1589.

11 University of Reading Library, Norfolk 20, book of payments and receipts 1576–1577; University of Chicago Library, Redgrave collection, 991 A, weekly wage payments 1582–1583 ‘for work done and other charges’; NRO, Raynham Hall, Box 33, household, steward's accounts (income and expenditure) 1587–1598; Folger Shakespeare Library, E b 2, weekly wage payments, 1587–1598; NRO, Bradfer-Lawrence, vii b (5), kitchen accounts 1592–1596. Because these manuscripts are scattered, unpaginated and, in the case of the household steward's accounts, only dated to the quarter, all reference citations are to the computerised database held by the Centre of East Anglian Studies in the University of East Anglia (cited hereafter as UEA Bacon DATABASE). Within this database all entries are transcribed in full and printouts of each manuscript (chronologically or alphabetically by person) and of all manuscripts combined (chronologically and alphabetically by person) are available for consultation.

12 Smith, A. Hassell, ‘Gentry accounts as a source for community studies? The case of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey’ in The study of a north Norfolk coastal community: Stiffkey 1560–1630 (ESRC final report, 1981, Boston Spa) 6–27.Google Scholar

13 Kussmaul, , Servants in husbandry, 31, 50, 51.Google Scholar

14 Mclntosh, M. K., ‘Servants and the household unit in an Elizabethan English county’, Journal of family history 9 (1984) 12.Google Scholar

15 Chalklin, C. W., Seventeenth-century Kent: a social and economic history (London, 1965) 248.Google Scholar

16 See Appendix I. Unless otherwise stated the information in succeeding paragraphs is derived from this appendix.

17 For an analysis of a similar group of servants in husbandry employed at Stiffkey in the 1620s see: Cattermole, R. H., ‘A study of the servants of Sir Roger Townshend’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of East Anglia, 1985) 23–42.Google Scholar The picture which emerges from that analysis is similar to that presented here.

18 Eldridge and Otty are always referred to with the prefix ‘father’; Sturgess was married in 1593, while Dragley was an experienced stockman by that year.

19 This statement is based on demographic data for those servants recruited from Stiffkey and Morston. They were, however, a minority of the whole group.

20 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/11275, 16547; Bradfer-Lawrence, H. L., ‘Stiffkey alias Stewkey’, Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society 23 (1929) 331Google Scholar; Kussmaul, , Servants in husbandry, 41.Google Scholar

21 See Appendix I sub Dewing and Thurlow.

22 Bacon Papers I 33–4, 56, 57, 60, 86, 87, 176Google Scholar; UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/16247, 17064, 16820, 16347; Folger Shakespeare Library L d 335. For similar practices elsewhere see: Houlbrooke, R. A., The English family, 1450–1700 (1984) 174Google Scholar; Kussmaul, , Servants in husbandry, 50.Google Scholar

23 Appendix I sub Bacon, Banyard, Batty, Goodman, Swann, Symon, Thurlow, Wright.

24 See Appendix I sub Bennett, Bradford, Dewing, Harrison, Lamming, Smith, Spark, Waynforth.

25 Bacon Papers I 273.

26 UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/28, 460, 802, 12590.

27 Smith, A. Hassell, ‘Gentry accounts’, 26–7.Google Scholar

28 Kussmaul, , Servants in husbandry, 4.Google Scholar

29 UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Otty, Father; Taylor, Richard; Nobbs, Anthony; Eldridge, Father; Nobody.

30 Kussmaul, Servants in husbandry, 34–5. She produces evidence for a similar range of tasks.

31 For some comments on the provision of tools by labourers see: Everitt, A. M., ‘Farm labourers’ in Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales IV 431Google Scholar; Roberts, M., ‘Sickles and scythes: women's work and men's work at harvest time’, History Workshop 7 (1979) 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 See above sections on ‘hedgers and ditchers’ and ‘non-specialist day-labourers’.

33 Skinner's wife, who appears to have been in charge of the dairy, purchased yarn ‘to make upp a paier of stockings’, 3 stone of combed wool, spindles and a pair of shears, as well as selling for £2 ‘small wofe made by the maides this last winter of 2 stonn of woll (UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/15001–2, 15609, 16800; 6/912, 980). This is an interesting side-light on the role of a humanist puritan gentleman in the development of rural industry.

34 See Appendix I sub Angel, Mary; Brook's wife; Skinner's wife; Spark's wife. Brook was cook in Bacon's household in 1587–1588 and 1592–1595.

35 For some interesting data on female servants in the late-medieval period which, albeit urban in context, could be seen to suggest similar flexibility in terms of service see: Goldberg, J., ‘Marriage, migration, servanthood and life-cycle in Yorkshire towns of the late Middle Ages: some York cause paper evidence’ Continuity and Change 1 (1986) 149–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/1504–17, 16576–88.

37 These include field books, parish registers for parishes adjacent to Stiffkey and an excellent set of poor-law accounts for the Hundreds of North Greenhoe and Holt which include the names of rate-payers as well as recipients.

38 NRO, Martyn deposit (11/6/70), bundle 5: depositions in a case between William Holland and William Armiger, December 1594.

39 UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/769, 770, 14556, 16402; 7/59, 127, 146, 286, 404, 434, 464, 489.

40 UEA Bacon DATABASE 4/344, 345; 5/791, 815, 829, 842, 857, 877, 888; 7/120.

41 These figures are based on identification through a variety of records. In some instances identification is by surname only. For similar conclusions see: Kussmaul, , Servants in husbandry, 56–60.Google Scholar

42 Unless otherwise stated, this and subsequent paragraphs are based on a series of shepherds' accounts (NRO, Bradfer-Lawrence, vii b (5)), and various references in the steward's account book.

43 NRO, Stiffkey parish register, burials, Henry Lambert (1584).

44 Bacon Papers 1191, 245, 271–3; UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Batty, Edmund; Stiffkey parish register.

45 Between 1581 and 1589 the flock had six shepherds.

46 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 6/744.

47 Ibid. 4/18231–2.

48 See Appendix IV sub Hall, Robert; Batty, Edmund. All the acates (fresh food) which they supplied were obtained through bird-catching and wild-fowling. Most of the labourers supplied eggs, poultry, meat and fish although one or two, like William Yeomans and William Appleton, also supplied some wild-fowl.

49 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/5676–7, 6157, 6840, 8432–3, 9966, 12721–2, 18231–2; 5/564.

50 Ibid. 6/184, 300, 410, 584, 744.

51 NRO, Bradfer-Lawrence, VII b (5), fo 53. NRO, Raynham Hall MS. Box 4 no. 12 sub Greve, Thomas.

52 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/8921–2, 9475, 12723.

53 NRO Norwich Archdeaconry Court wills, Bell 18.

54 NRO, Norwich Consistory Court wills, Sone 133; NRO, Raynham Hall, box 6, no. 43.

55 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 5/1–24; 4/395, 703, 706, 979, 1067.

56 See Appendix II sub hedgers and ditchers.

57 For example: ‘to Warham men for egeing and diching of 90 rodes at Langham heath £300.’ or ‘geven to Langham men for hedginge and dicheing at Langham heathe £6 2 0. (UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/5681, 5697).

58 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 5/4168.

59 Ibid. 4/1358–72, 15470–501, 16560–72.

60 Bacon Papers I and II, various references.

61 Smith, A. Hassell, County and court: government and politics in Norfolk 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974) 172.Google Scholar

62 Folger Shakespeare Library E b 2.

63 See above section on ‘non-specialist day-labourers’.

64 See Appendix III.

65 See Appendix II part B for firms of building craftsmen. For family-based firms see sub Blogg, Ketcham, Young, Lath, Ford, Andrews, Rogers, Isborne, Burdon, Reeder, Stamp, Cleves, Leveridge, Grace, More.

66 See Appendix II part B sub Chappell, Skinner, Wyatt, Grace.

67 See Appendix II part B where the wage-rate normally paid to craftsmen and their labourers by Bacon (with or without meat and drink) has been indicated.

68 Tingey, J. C., ‘An assessment of wages for Norfolk in 1610’, English Historical Review 13 (1898) 522–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 For similar observations about ‘meat and drink’ rates in the thirteenth century see: Salzman, L. F., Building in England down to 1540: a documentary history (Oxford, 1967) 69.Google Scholar

70 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 5/4168.

71 Ibid. 6/148.

72 Everitt, A. M., ‘Farm labourers’ in Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales IV 437.Google Scholar Dr Chalklin has estimated the annual cost of labourers' board and lodging during the early seventeenth century at between £8 and £10 (Kent, 249).

73 This estimate is based on the kitchen account book for the period 1592–1596 (NRO, Bradfer-Lawrence, vii b (5)).

74 See Appendix III for the statistics in this paragraph.

75 Ibid.sub Bowman, John; Dickman, John; Ivory, John; More, Ralph; Spark, Edmund.

76 For the patterns of their employment see Appendix IV and UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Bowman, Dickman, Ivory, More and Spark. For thrashing by John Ivory see Bacon Papers III 55; for thrashing by John Dickman see bailiffs accounts, 1598–1601, FSL, E b3.

77 For evidence to this effect in the late-medieval period see: Knoop, D. and Jones, G. P., The medieval mason: an economic history of English stone building in the later middle ages and early-modern times (Manchester, 3rd ed., 1967) 120.Google Scholar

78 The above observations are based on a chart prepared by Elizabeth Stern which shows the weekly employment pattern of all labourers and craftsmen employed by Bacon. It can be consulted in the Centre of East Anglian Studies, UEA.

79 See Appendix II part C sub furzemakers; UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Bell; Bell, father; Kemp; Wentworth; Witchingham.

80 UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Owtin (slaughterman), Strickland (mole-catcher). Base (vermin-catcher).

81 Ibid.sub Hodge, Edward; Green, George; Lyon, Robert.

82 Ibid.sub Banyard, Thomas; Dawson, Thomas; Page, John I and II; Chapman, Robert; Thomson, Edward.

83 Bacon Papers II 246.Google Scholar

84 See UEA Bacon DATABASE and Appendix I in part II of this essay sub Appleton, Williams; Appleton, Richard; Banyard, John; Barney, William; Coles, William; Croxen, Robert; Dawson, Thomas; Engledew, John; Folkes, Robert; Green, John; Hall, William; May, William; Percival, Epiphanes; Wilson, Thomas; Yeomans, William.

85 See Appendix III sub Appleton, Richard; Appleton, William; Banyard, John; Barney, William; Croxen, Robert; Dawson, Thomas; May, William; Percival, Epiphanes; Wilson, Thomas; Yeomans, William.

86 Appendix IV shows the total number of days worked by male day-labourers from Stiffkey in 1593–1594 to have been 662. To arrive at the days worked by the non-specialists we must subtract from this figure the number of days worked by seven specialist labourers: Batty (29), Bowman (92), Dickman (11), Hall (0), Ivory (10), More (89), Spark (13). This leaves a total of 418 worked by the non-specialist labourers.

87 The payments to the saffron harvesters are missing from the lists of agricultural wages for 1593–1594. They can, however, be extrapolated from an enrolled account for husbandry expenses in 1598–1599 where they amount to about £21. The evidence for this statement will be presented in a forthcoming article on ‘Gentry accounts as a source for community studies: a case study from the papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey’.

88 UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Brigham, William; Jary, Thomas; Kensall, Robert; Loades, Richard; Money, Robert; Taylor, Richard.

89 See Appendix IV sub Barney, William; Wilson, Thomas; Yeomans, William.

90 See above, at endnote 6.

91 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/16703.

92 See Appendix I in part II of this essay sub Mounford, John and Edmund; Speller, John and Thomas.

93 For evidence of medium-sized farmers in neighbouring parishes employing resident farm servants see the paragraph below.

94 Howell, C., Kibworth Harcourt, 178.Google ScholarDrHowell, writes ‘… we have no instances of men with less than 24 acres employing extra-familial labour.’Google Scholar

95 Morston, Langham, Cockthorpe, Binham and Warham. This paragraph is based on evidence from: field surveys for Binham, 1575 (University of Hull, Brynmor Jones Library, DDSQ (3)/19/1); Langham, 1577, (NRO, Raynham Hall, box 34/22); Morston, 1583 (NRO, Raynham Hall, box 34/27), and 1619 (NRO, Raynham Hall, box 114), from the parish registers of Morston, Cockthorpe, Binham and Warham and from miscellaneous evidence in Bacon Papers I, II, and III.

96 Morston, Langham, Cockthorpe and Binham. The tenurial structure in Warham is not clear since we have no field-book for this parish.

97 Bacon Papers III 295 sub Morston and Langham.

98 Welters, P. J. F., ‘A study of some aspects of the Binham survey of 1576’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of East Anglia, 1986).Google Scholar

99 UEA Bacon DATABASE sub Goldsmith, Henry; Harrison, Robert and William; Kellett, John; Kemp of Langham; Newman, John; Parish, Thomas; Percival, Robert; Stamp, John; Roberts, William; Stubbs, Matthew; Towting, John; Wentworth; Young, John.

100 For a thorough investigation of labouring women in late-Elizabethan Stiffkey see Campbell, L., ‘The women of Stiffkey’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of East Anglia, 1985).Google Scholar In this section I have drawn heavily on her work.

101 See Appendix IV.

102 Ibid.

103 For the omission of payments to the saffron harvesters from the accounts for 1593–1594 and an estimate of their annual total see endnote 87 above.

104 See Appendix IV.

105 Ibid. For the great disparity in the days worked by non-specialist labouring men see above section on ‘non-specialist day-labourers’, especially first three paragraphs.

106 The evidence for this group activity among labouring women is provided by the entries in the wages lists where their names appear sequentially, each of them being paid the same rate for the same number of days. See UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/1292–98, 1011–28, 1035–45, 15386–92, 15407–16, 16659–74, 16689–96.

107 See Appendix IV. The 13 day-labourers' wives include wives of specialist as well as non-specialist labourers.

108 Female labourers from only Stifikey, for instance, appear in the wages lists for 1593–1594, but the accounts do not name the women paid for 68 days' work (see Appendix IV).

109 UEA Bacon DATABASE, 4/10785.

110 Ibid. 4/752–59.

111 See Appendix IV.

112 For the century 1580–1680, Keith Wrightson estimates that £11–14 was a subsistence wage in normal years: Wrightson, K., English society 1580–1680 (Cambridge, 1982) 34.Google Scholar

113 Appendix IV. In looking at the figures for total incomes in this table the reader should bear in mind that they include income from the sale of acates (fresh food) as well as day-labouring, and that no adjustment has been made for income from the saffron harvest.

114 Chalklin, , Kent, 249Google Scholar; Wrightson, , English society, 34.Google Scholar

115 Thirsk, J. I., ‘Industries in the countryside’, in Fisher, F. J., ed., Essays in the economic and social history of Tudor and Stuart England in honour of R. H. Tawney (Cambridge, 1961) 70–88.Google Scholar

116 Spufford, , Contrasting communities, 16–28, 90–91, 118, 121–64.Google Scholar For a general statement of these findings, see Wrightson, English Society, 126–7.Google Scholar