Chapter 12

Fields, enclosures and farming

From maps and records it is possible to follow the enclosure of the commons and the development of the field system in Cockermouth from the late 18th century, but there is less certainty about the arrangement in earlier times. There were small enclosures at an early date. Thomas de Lucy referred in an agreement of 1285 to enclosure improvements at Embleton. [1] As early as about 1290 Furness Abbey was given permission to enclose Pastures adjoining the forest of the Lord of Egremont. [2] The Abbey was free to choose its own method of enclosure -. dyke, wall or fence – to keep in the sheep, but the boundary must be low enough for deer to leap.

Isolated farmsteads, villages and small towns like Cockermouth would from their very beginnings have a number of small enclosures round them, with ways or ‘bars’ through these fields to the commons beyond.

The method of development from these beginnings varied considerably over the country, but the infield-outfield system was widespread and lasted a long time in northern England. This consisted of intensively and continuously cultivated infields, growing oats, barley, beans, etc., heavily cropped and heavily manured each year. Beyond lay the outfields or larger cropped areas, cultivated to varying extent according to the immediate need and manured by cattle pastured there after they had been gathered. Manure was a valuable commodity. The Court Leet passed the following resolution in 1690

• “It is put in pain that no inhabitant within this borough shall sell or give any manure to any in Brigham sub poena 6s. 8d. “(33p)

and even in recent farm-letting agreements occur clauses such as

• “all vewtures shall be consumed on the farm”

ensuring that the farm land is not impoverished during the tenancy.

As population increased the infields would extend at the expense of the outfields, which in turn would push further out on to the waste.

In early medieval times Cockermouth would have fields of arable land divided into strips. A man might farm several strips in various fields, so that he had a share of both the better and the poorer land. The fields themselves were enclosed by hedge or wall, but neighbouring strips (in a corn field of the width a sweep of the scythe could cut) were divided by only a furrow or small ridge. There had to be co-operation regarding crops, so that the whole field could be harvested at the same time, enabling stock to be turned into it to graze. The stubble of a strip of oats could not be grazed while a tempting root crop grew unprotected alongside.

The strip fields in some of the villages around Cockermouth have been located, for example a fairly extensive system north-east of Bridekirk which was confirmed by aerial exploration in 1976. In Cockermouth itself we do not know how many fields were strip-farmed – building has made aerial confirmation impossible – but there are indications that one such field was east of Kirkgate in Long Crofts. Wood’s map of 1832 shows a number of very long, narrow fields, much longer in proportion to width than the usual rectangular fields of the enclosure around this date.

Individuals would buy or exchange strips, enabling them to have a number together which were easier and more economical to farm than scattered holdings.

Eventually a group of strips might be large enough for the tenant, subject to the agreement of his neighbours, to enclose them as a field of his own. Possibly this happened in Longcrofts to produce the 1832 field pattern. The 3-field system did not develop here, but there is evidence that fields were left fallow to improve them. [3]

As far back as the second half of the 13th century there is a record of the manor of Cockermouth having a close of 25 acres below the castle; 83 acres of arable land in Ourebyfeld and a field near St. Helen’s chapel; and another 56 arable acres in le Cragges and Brudekirkefeld. [4] There were demesne meadows named Apeltonmeded, Braythemire, Spytelenge and Kirkemire. We still have Spittai lng. Kirkemire was presumably near the church, swampy ground along the Cocker or Bitter Beck. Early records make it possible to locate the fields of Longcrofts, Urebyfield (or Overbyfield .the above-town field) and Hulland Closes to the east of the town, and Laithwaite (or Lathead) to the west. Norse ending of Ureby is evidence that there was a farmstead or small settlement in Cockermouth before the castle was built. A 17th century map (Plate 1) labels Deare Orchard, Whete Cloffe, Horseclofe and Laund (Lands) in the lord’s demesne. It suggests a complex of fields in other parts of the area, with “The Common” and Derwent Fells beyond, but one cannot be certain whether, in an ornate picture map of this kind, the apparent boundary lines are merely decoration or whether they depict reasonably accurately the field pattern at this time (Figure 33).

We have seen that co-operation was necessary in order to farm the infields and this also applied to the outfields, how much should be cultivated, which areas should lie fallow, how many animals a man might have on the common pasture a stinting system still in operation today on unfenced fell land such as Skiddaw. Co-operation required that those concerned should meet, in either a manorial court or a town meeting. The extent of the field system depended largely on the size of the population and the consequent demand for food.

To take two examples: – The 4 million population of the country on the first outbreak of the Black Death in 1348 was reduced to little more than a half during the next 25 years and numbers began to increase again only about 1450, taking until 1600 to return to the 1348 level. [5] Many fields would obviously fall into disuse, some abandoned strips being consolidated into hedged pastures after about 1450 to meet the increasing demand for wool. Then again as the population increased in the 17th and 18th centuries and restrictions on development of ‘waste’ lands were relaxed., smallholdings would be started along roads, near streams etc., om hitherto uncultivated land. This rather haphazard development proved insufficient to meet the demand and economic factors in the 18th century necessitated the speeding up of the process. Much enclosure was done by agreement, land being disafforested, and sometimes there was agreement not to enclose, retaining the common grazing rights.

In 1704 proposals were ‘humbly offered‘ by the inhabitants of Cockermouth to the Duke of Somerset to ‘improve’ waste ground and common in the borough, with suggestions for fees and inheritance fines on each improved acre.’ [6]

Much enclosure was achieved under parliamentary acts. There was an application to Parliament for Cockermouth enclosures in 1777. The Cumberland Pacquet carried the announcement

“Cockermouth Inclofure. Notice is hereby given purfuant to a Refolution of the Honourable the Houfe of Commons, That an Application is intended to be made to Parliament in the next Seffion of Parliament for obtaining an Act for Dividing and Inclofing certain commons and Wafte Grounds lying near the Town of Cockermouth in the County of Cumberland. September 12, 1777.” [7]

In 1810 a meeting was held in the Moot Hall of proprietors oflands and others interested in the enclosure of further commons and waste and on 21 April 1813 Royal Assent was given to a further act for inclosing 1200 acres, probably the area of Cockermouth Moor extending from st. Helen’s Street to Strawberry How road. The act ran to 31 Pages and contained well over 200 claims, such as

• “No. 2. Allison Wm. Claims a portion of common for the dwelling houses occupied by himself and Daniel Harrison and John Black situate in Cockermouth known by the name of the Old Hall.” [8}

There was concern that the rights enjoyed on the common lands, for example taking turf for fuel, should not be ignored.

The Castle has a plan of the enclosure, dated 2 December 1815, signed by John Huddleston and Richard Atkinson, Commissioners, and Jas. Steel, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for Cumberland.

Over the whole country some 2000 acts were passed for different parishes from 1793 to 1815, the rate then falling as the number unenclosed dwindled. The increase of population, the lack of imports because of war and the big rise in prices in the period 1760 to 1810 made investment in hitherto unproductive land an attractive proposition. Local enclosures at this time included Eaglesfield and Blindbothel 1812, Brigham 1812-3, Setmurthy and Embleton 1813, Great and Little Broughton 1815, Greysouthen 1819. Whinfell1820 and Lorton 1826. [9]

Enclosures made at this period may be easily recognised by their straight sides and frequently rectangular shape as distinct from the irregular fields of earlier times. Such may be seen on the approach to Moota along the Carlisle road. The new fields tended to be of five to ten acres, with larger enclosures of 50 acres or more further out, but the latter proved to be too big even for pasture and were mostly divided into smaller units. [10]

The powers of parliamentary enclosure increased. In 1836 a two-thirds majority of landowners could compel a parish to enclose, but by 1845 a permanent commission had powers to enclose land wherever it was considered desirable. Eventually the public became aware how much access was being lost and the Commons Preservation Act of 1876 curbed the process unless it was recognised as being for the benefit of the community. The crowded inhabitants of the growing industrial towns needed open country within reach.

The effect of enclosure survives in Cockermouth, although there are now few fields actually within the town boundary, for the overall shape of housing estates on the outskirts of the town has been determined by the pattern of the fields on which they were built.

The landowners and larger farmers benefitted from having their own enclosed fields- easier to work, no restrictive communal rules, more varied crops, an ability to drain and improve one’s land without waiting for the full agreement of other people. Land value doubled and trebled. The people who suffered were those who had been able to work one or two strips or to keep an animal on the common and now found themselves with nothing.

The mid-17th century was prosperous (sturdy farmhouses and strong oak furniture date from this period), but by the beginning of the following century Cumberland was one of the most backward agricultural areas in the country.

• “The extensive commons, the distance from markets and commercial centres, all encouraged the idea that Cumberland should be content to feed and clothe itself, and keep alive its poor herds of stock over the winter. A few sheep, the poorer sort of Irish and Scotch beasts, grazed on the higher lands … Draining was hardly heard of. The implements of husbandry were of the rudest character, and everything about the farms was similar… The dependence of the small farmer was on the commons.” [11]

There he kept horses, pigs, geese, sheep and cows and found turf and peat for fuel, wild berries for food and rushes for lights. It was stated in 1794 that

• “There are probably few counties where property in land is divided into such small parcels as in Cumberland; and these small properties so universally occupied by the owners; by far the greatest part of which are held under the lords of the manors, by that species of vassalage, called customary tenure; subject to the payment of fines and heriots, on alienation, death of the lord, or death of tenant, and the payment of certain annual rents, and performance of various services, called Boon-days, sueh as getting and leading the lord’s peats, plowing and harrowing his land, reaping his corn, haymaking, carrying letters, etc., etc., whenever summoned by the lord.” [I2]

Often a small fanner and his family supplemented income by home spinning and weaving, quarrying, mining or lime burning.

The prices which a fanner might expect for his crops in 1782 were fixed by Quarter Sessions held in Cockermouth as £1-18s-8d for a quarter (8 Winchester bushels) of wheat, £1-1s-4d for rye, 10s-8d. for oats, £ 1-16s-8d for bigger barley, £] -ls-4d for beans, £ 1-12s-0d for malt and 18s-8d. for gray pease. [13] The expenses of raising crops in 1804 were:

Barley: For 3 ploughings and harrowings at 10s: £2-10s-0d

30 loads of manure, leading and spreading: £4-15s-0d

Wheat: for 40 bushels of lime and leading: £2-10s-0d

Manure 25 loads and leading and spreading: £3-19s-2d

Four ploughings and harrowings: £1-17s-6d

Turnips: Ploughing, manuring, cleaning Total £7-16s 8d

Standards gradually improved, largely through the inspiration of John Christian Curwen of Workington and J. R. G. Graham of Netherby, who experimented in selective breeding of stock, grew more fodder and turnips for winter feeding to obviate the autumn slaughter, manured and drained their land. Still there were hazards which could not be foreseen .. .long frosts, droughts, or wet summers bringing sheep rot and other diseases. There were other hazards besides natural forces, such as the collapse of corn prices in 1815 when many who had borrowed money to expand to meet the demand of the war years were unable to repay. Ruined as fanners they became landless labourers or drifted into Cockermouth and other towns to find work. There came competition from American grain and Australian frozen meat (first in 1880). Sometimes the growth of industry helped, for people needed meat and vegetables, but this might be offset by the migration from our area to the new industrial towns further south.

In ten years from 1871 the number of farm workers in the country fell by about 100,000. Once even the top of Whin fell was ploughed, but in contrast there were long periods of depression, the most recent being 1880 to 1940 when many farm buildings around Cockermouth fell into disuse, to be eagerly sought in recent years for conversion into dwellings.

Acts of 1892 and 1908 relating to smallholdings and allotments (2 acres and a cow) endeavoured to turn the tide. The two wars boosted demand for home grown food. Derating of farm premises came in 1929, there were marketing acts in the 1930s and grain subsidies were introduced, and since the last war there has been a variety of help and, in particular, subsidies for hill fanners in our area. Still the drift from the land continued at about 10,000 workers a year between the wars. The number of farmworkers was halved from 1870 to 1930. With amalgamations and increase mechanisation the situation is now more static. Meanwhile Cockermouth has continued its centuries old function as market and supplies centre of an agricultural area, a function we shall examine later.

One of the expenses fanners (and others) had to meet was the tithe or tenth payable to the church. This was distinct from the church rate or cess levied for the upkeep of the structure and over which parishioners had control in both its amount and its use through elected churchwardens and vestry meetings. Tithes were taken in kind by a rector or by the impropriators (lay owners) of a living who were obliged to appoint and pay a vicar. They were payable on the increase of all living things hay, com, honey, hens, etc., etc. In return every parishioner, including dissenters, had the right without favour to the ministrations of the church.

A Lamplugh record gives some idea of the thoroughness of the system. In 1771 the rector, Richard Dickinson, wrote:

• Corn … The Owner cuts down, binds up and stooks the Corn, and the Parson by the Owners knowledge and consent sets out every tenth Stook and tenth part with liberty to dry his Corn on the Stubel. Wool… The Owner lays it in five heapes and the Rector takes one and divides that in two and the Owner takes one half back again, Lambs … If the Owner have One he pays a Halfpenny, Two a Penny, Three three halfpence, Four Twopence, Five Half a lamb, Six a whole lamb paying Twopence out, Seven paying Three halfpence, Eight paying a penny, Nine paying a halfpenny, and the Owner sets them ten together beginning with ten of the Best then takes up Two and the Parson One and so on..

and so on for geese, pigs, hens, bees, cows, roots and hay. [15]

We may note here certain fees which all parishioners had to pay, listed in the same memorandum

• “For every Communicant after the first time of Receiving is Three Halfpence pay’d on Easter Tuesday. An oblation for every Churching of Women fourpence. Every Wedding by Bands one shilling, by licence five shillings.”

Rates would be similar in Cockermouth.

In addition the parson had “right of Common on all the Commons in the parish”. Land brought newly into cultivation was free of tithe for seven years. Men would be employed to collect wool, corn, etc., and to take it to the tithe barn. They would act for the rector in selecting the tenth.

A record of 1700 for Arlecdon Parish states

• “Lambs set out in Tens, owner take up 2; Tither take lout of 8. Touch and take. Fleeses of Wool laid out in Tens, owner take up 2; Tither take lout of 8. Touch and take. [16]

“Touch and take” prevented handling before making a choice. The tithe payer would know his stock, but the collector had to rely on appearances.

When dissenters refused to pay tithes a warrant for distraint was obtained from the magistrates and goods sold to raise the money. For Quakers in Dean parish this was usually £3-8s-0d., but the Rector’s expenses in obtaining it averaged £4-17s-6d.! [17]

It gradually became more convenient for all concerned to make a money payment instead of giving a tenth of stock or produce. This began to some extent before 1600 (tithes date from pre Norman times) and by 1750 all tithe on corn in Dean was paid in cash. [18] Unfortunately we do not have the records for Cockermouth. Finally all payment in kind was ended by the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. An assessment was made of the value of every field and building and a rent fixed based upon the price of wheat, barley and oats. This was revised every seven years and tables published annually to help in calculation. The evaluation for the country in 1836 was about four million pounds.

The Articles of Agreement on Tithes for Cockermouth [19] dated 31 March 1840 give the area of the town as 2222 acres, of which 1262 acres were subject to payment of tithes in kind – 492 acres of arable land, 709 of meadow or pasture and 60 of woodland. The land not subject to payment in kind belonged to three owners Henry Wyndham, whose 887 acres (including Cockermouth Parks) were “exempt from the render of all Tithes in Kind by the Payment of One Stone Weight of Wool Yearly at Michaelmas”; John Hodgson for 16 acres of St. Helen’s Closes, etc., by the payment of JOs.; and Humphrey Senhouse whose 56 acres were excused from tithe by an allotment of land given to the impropriator.

The Agreement sets out the following rates of payment for all other Cockermouth holdings

“For Each Milch Cow Threepence For Each Foal Sixpence

Three Halfpence is paid for every Communicant above the Age of Sixteen Years throughout the said Township and Ten Shillings for a Mortuary

For Each Cast of Bees Twopence.

Richard Atkinson of Bassenthwaite Halls was appointed valuer to apportion the rents in lieu of tithes, the gross rent charge being £150. The price per bushel of wheat was given as 7s-0Y4d [35p], of barley 3s-11 ‘i’2d. and of oats 2s-9d. (20]

The Bishop of Chester, Bishop Gastrell, made a survey of his diocese in 1714 and posed the question “Have you any particular or unusual system of Tything?”, to which Cockermouth replied

• “We have four men called Proctors which collects of every Inhabitant at Easter three Halfpence which they call Communicant money but neither provides bread nor wine with it. We Have these four proctors wch if anybody above ye age of 16 years refuse to pay their dues (as they call it) They get a Conviction before ye Justices of ye Peace and makes them pay unreasonable Charges. They will not receive their dues sent by any Quaker unless they will carry such fees themselves: but gets them Convicted. They farm these tythes to make a proffit. [21]

Tithes are not yet quite dead. The Tithe Redemption Commission was laid down as recently as 1960 and its work of phasing out tithes by the end of the 20th century transferred to the Board of Inland Revenue.

Very detailed maps were drawn for Cockermouth for the commutation of tithes, one representing the very centre of the town, the other the surrounding areas. [22] Each plan was accompanied by a schedule, Part 2 for the centre, Part 1 for the rest. Entries (there were over a thousand) were made under eight headings – landowner; occupiers; number on plan; name and description of land or premises; state of cultivation; area in acres, perches and roods; amount of rent charge apportioned upon the land and payable to the impropriator; remarks.

There is much of interest in the thousand items, but space forbids more than five by way of example, the first from Part 1, the others from Part 2.

Cockermouth’s tithe barn no longer exists. Presumably it was in the area of the Tithebarn Hotel in Station Street and the barn mentioned several times as standing near the Station Street/South Street corner may well have been it. General Wyndham had 125 properties entered, 86 in Part 1 occupying 887 acres, for which he paid the stone of wool in lieu, the 114 acres of the remaining entries being in Part 2 and rented at £7-5s-7d. The other landowners with more than 100 acres were Andrew Green (50 entries totalling 170 acres, rent £] 8-11s.0d.), John Watson (42 entries, 200 acres, £22-ls-6d.) and the Trustees of William Park (29 entries,149 acres, £17-ls-6d.). John Hodgson had 15 entries, many of them connected with his tannery – tanyard field, tanyard wood, tanyard and buildings. Thomas Mackreth got his 73 properties in less than two acres, rent 5s., but Mackreth was a builder and these were presumably small houses, many of them not yet occupied as they were listed as ’empty’. As more land was enclosed a whole variety of distinguishing names for new fields was needed. Occasionally a name incorporates one of the three basic types of farm land arable, -ploughed and seeded; meadow – natural grass near a river; and pasture – grazing outside the ‘head dyke’ which protected the arable land from stock on the lower fell slopes .. Sometimes the type of land became part of a name – mire if wet and boggy; holme if an ‘island’ not quite as wet as its surroundings; or butts if an awkward part of a field difficult to plough. ‘Croft’ indicates a home field, near the house, and ‘acre’ the amount ofland which could be ploughed in a day, as in Ten Acre Field.

A map of 1810 showing the new fields in Hulland Close illustrates a variety of methods of naming. Clover Field, Corn Close and Wheat Field would be named after crops grown in them and the names retained after the land was used in other ways. Local features provided a convenient means of reference and Hulland has Barn Field, Barn End Field, Spring Meadow and Fell Field. A very unusual method found here is straightforward numbering, as in first to seventh fields on the town side of the occupation road. A later map shows that as enclosure spread eastwards there appeared Newlands north, middle and south, and beyond that Brick-kiln Close – west, middle and east. Near’ and ‘far’ are very common sub-divisions, and other descriptions such as ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ or ‘large’ and ‘small’ occur frequently. Recent events and well-known people were commemorated, Waterloo and Wellington Farms proving that these areas were enclosed and the farms built soon after the Napoleonic Wars. There were many examples in Cockermouth of owners’ names becoming attached to fields. To take just one, a field described on a map of the Parks enclosures as ‘Land occupied by Mr. John Atkinson’ had become ‘Atkinson Field’ by the tithe map of 1840. Finally, remote fields were sometimes given the names of remote places if we travel far enough beyond Park House along the Isel road we come to ‘Near Botnay Bay’ and then ‘Botnay Bay’.

Cumbria was badly hit in 2001 by a massive outbreak of foot and mouth disease in cattle and sheep. [The last previous outbreak had been in 1967-8]. It was suspected that the source had been illegally imported meat from the Far East, infecting sheep which were traded at Longtown Market. The resulting problem was widely distributed in 44 British counties, unitary authorities and metropolitan districts from the Scottish Borders to Anglesey to Cornwall. Cumbria was by far the worst affected with 891 outbreaks recorded by the Carlisle Disease Control Centre out of 2026 national outbreaks. Cockermouth was no exception although by fewer direct infections than the lowland areas along the M6 corridor, through Eden district and, to the North. Apart from total restrictions on access to the countryside, which seemed to be well respected by walkers, a programme of culling animals was put in place, not only those infected but also those from neighbouring farms which might have become infected. The epidemic lasted 221 days and in total, nationwide, approximately 4,200,000 animals were culled (12% cattle, 3% pigs and 85% sheep). Whilst farmers received compensation, the tourist industry was badly hit and took some time to recover.