1. Crakehall under the Lords of Middleham

For at least 250 years following the Norman Conquest Great and Little Crakehall were strictly feudal manors, in which the Lord of the Manor had virtually complete control over the lives of the farmers and labourers (the 'villeins" and "bordars" or cottagers) in the villages. A tenant could not give up his farm without permission, even to hand it on to his own son. He could not leave the manor; he could not even allow his daughters to marry without paying a fine ( a "merchet") to the lord. Most importantly, as far as the lord was concerned, the tenant was obliged to share the cultivation of the lord's home farm, his "demesne", in return for the tenancy of his own. Lady Mary Neville of Middleham gave some of her property in Crakehall to the Canons of Coverham Abbey in 1316. The deed included the farms that William son of Alan, Ralph son of William, William son of Symon and Alicia Steel "held in bondage" , together with all their cattle and goods, and all their services. They were virtually slaves.

However, the lord of the manor depended on his tenants for the farming of his demesne and could not easily recruit labourers from other manors because they in turn were tied to their manor by the feudal system. So there was a balance of interdependence between lord and tenant, governed by the customs of the manor and administered by the manor court. In Crakehall, by the 14th century the "services" mentioned in the Coverham Abbey charter - the duty to work on the lord's farm - had in practice been commuted to rents paid to the lord in lieu of work. Presumably the population of the village had grown enough to provide full time labourers for the lord's farm. The Inquisition into the manor of Great Crakehall made on the death of the lord of the manor, Sir Robert Tatershale, in 1298,(see the complete document HERE) shows the tenants paying rents of 9 shillings a year for each bovate of land they farmed, while the cottagers, who just had a garth or "croft" attached to their cottages, paid 2 shillings, and presumably were employed as craftsmen or as labourers on Sir Robert's demesne farm.

In 1327 a national tax was levied on the goods and cattle of the entire population who had any property. By this time the lord of the manor of Great Crakehall, now Lady Mary Neville, no longer paid any tax in Crakehall, so it seems likely that she was letting the demesne farm to tenants. In an Inquisition of 1367 the demesne farm was "let to tenants at will" and later inquisitions and manorial acounts show that the lord of the manor never had a large demesne farm there again or lived in the manor house. It was probably easier for them to collect their rents than to manage a farm under the uncertain conditions of the 14th century, when national financial slumps, several years of disastrously bad weather, and frequent raids by Scottish armies must have made farming seem most unattractive.

The leases of demesne land created a new kind of farm tenancy where the lord of the manor could let or reposess the farm "at will". A tenant at will was not tied to the manor but on the other hand he did not have security of tenure either. One of the few advantages of the feudal system for peasant farmers was that they did come to have security of tenure; on payment of a fine a farmer could automatically pass on the farm to his eldest son, simply recording the transaction at the manor court. He was given a copy of the court roll - the record of the court - as his evidence, and this kind of tenure became known as copyhold. In Crakehall, as in the whole of the Lordship of Middleham, this continued into the 17th century, despite strenuous efforts by Queen Elizabeth to abolish it.

Because the Lordship of Middleham became crown property following the defeat of King Richard III in the Wars of the Roses, the manor court documents and the financial accounts of the manor of Crakehall have survived for the 15th and 16th centuries in the National Archives and elsewhere. The records of the "Court of Richard, Earl of Salisbury, held on Tuesday, the morrow of the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 28th year of the reign of King Henry the sixth" (1450) reveal the village in a sorry state after years of national economic depression and depopulation (for the complete document see HERE). The lord of the manor and his tenants were making efforts to improve the fabric of the village, but the court reported that some farm buildings were still in disrepair and tenants could not be found for some farms, including land that had been part of the lord's demesne. A cottage recently let to Thomas Sickling was "ruinous by the neglect of the lord"; the corn mill had a damaged lower millstone "and the lord is responsible for its repair"; the barn called Assebylath and the farm called Baldhous were in total ruin "by neglect of the lord". The lord of the manor was left by the court in no doubt as to his responsibilities. If he wanted new tenants for his unoccupied farms and land he was obliged to take these complaints seriously. He was already carrying out repairs: "the dwelling house and barn held by Thomas Tippyng that previously was in disrepair is sufficiently repaired by the lord, who has relieved Thomas of the charge of the repairs". The bailiff reported to the court that:
Three months later the lord had repaired the millpond wall and had paid for rebuilding a timber framed "little house" for Robert Whithorn, but despite his outlay on the fulling mill it was still in partial disrepair and unlet. The same court criticised sitting tenants for their neglect of their property and of the communal facilities of the village. They were collectively accused of neglecting the common bakehouse, while several farmers were named individually for the neglect of their houses. The new miller in the village had failed to carry out his contracted repairs and the mill was " much worse in its walls, its roof and mill pond by the neglect of the said Thomas."

The court rolls of this period reveal many of the manorial customs that regulated the way the lord and his tenants behaved. The farmers, for example, were allowed to take timber for repairing their houses and fences from the Hagg Wood, but had to inform the forester. It was his responsibility to ensure that the woods were not over-exploited. In 1450 no fewer than 22 of the tenants were fined twopence each for taking wood from the East Hagg without permission, and others for damaging "the verge of the wood" by so doing. When Thomas Taillour leased a farm from the lord for six years he was allowed to "take freely from the tenement timber for ploubote and timber to make one cart." Robert Symondson's little barn was "defective in two floors and two doors and the lord's forester frees sufficient timber to repair it and to repair a tenement that has defective timber".

Two agricultural matters that concerned all the village were the enclosure of common land and the grazing of animals on the common. The arable fields, the village pastures and meadows, were farmed in common. Private enclosure of land or over-grazing by one farmer affected everyone. The court rolls show that most of the pasture was stinted - each farm was allotted a certain number of "beastgates" (the right to graze a certain number of beasts) in the pastures. The court heard that six tenants had kept one or two oxen "beyond their stint in the cow pasture and ought to pay the other tenants. And they are fined by the court, through the steward. And the jurors say that Robert Wade, chaplain, kept 10 sheep in the demesne without right, and he is fined 2 pence." Robert Wade probably thought that with a lot of the demesne land unlet he might as well use it! The lord's sheep pasture at Crakehall Cote was bare of sheep. Disaster had struck his flock in the previous two years when a disease called "Redenill" had swept through the flock, killing forty one wethers in the first year, forty eight during the following winter and forty six wethers, two ewes and four lambs in the next season.

Trouble over land seems to have been mainly with 'outsiders'. William Ascough (the lord of the manor of Cowling) had "stubbornly maintained an enclosure (in Crakehall) to his sole use, to the loss of the lord". William Barker and John Taillour of Newton had ploughed over the village boundary into the access lane in Robert Whithorn's part of the Gill Field of Crakehall and had planted a large part of it. Similar examples of petty trespass cropped up regularly: three men from Little Crakehall and Brompton "cut ferns from the moor of this manor without permission"; "John Henryson of Langthorne cut a green hazel wand in Burstall Wood without permission".

The state of the beck and other watercourses was of general concern, but seems to have been considered the responsibility of the landlord. At every court for four years complaints were made about "the water course called le Skourth" (Scurfe Beck) being neglected by the lord of Crakehall, by Christopher Conyers, lord of Little Crakehall and Langthorne, and by the Abbot of Coverham, so that it regularly flooded. The disrepair of the fulling mill was also causing flooding in summer. This was probably due to the collapse of the bank of the millpond because, following repair work on the millpond wall no further complaints were made.

Most of the work of the lord's bailiff or steward (Thomas Rand of Rand Grange, at this time) and of the manor court was concerned with day to day farm management and minor offences against the rules of the manor. Occasionally, though, a more serious crime, like cattle rustling, enlivened the proceedings. In 1450 the court heard that John Lofthouse of Bedale had taken 20 beasts belonging to the lord of the manor, and another 40 belonging to Thomas Rand, from Crakehall and kept them in Bedale for 2 days and nights. He admitted that he had taken 6 oxen of Thomas Rand's, which were breaking down the hedges in the field in which they were kept, but he seems to have claimed that the other cattle strayed onto his land and that in fact he had saved their owners money by feeding them with his own corn "to the loss of his own beasts". He clearly believed in attack as the best form of defence! He disclaimed all responsibility for the straying of 160 sheep from Rand, and the jury agreed that he was not to blame. The case turned out to be a storm in a teacup, for John was merely put on good behaviour for a year and two friends stood surety for him.

During the reign of the Earl of Warwick and of Richard, Duke of Gloucester as lords of Middleham, life for the Crakehall bailiff and the lord's tenants was occasionally more exciting (though also more burdensome). From 1465 onwards the manor accounts show great activity in repairing and rebulding all over the Lordship of Middleham. Carpenters were busily at work on the watermills and renewing roof timbers, while the stone flag quarry at Leyburn provided load after load of roofing slates. The stables, corn mill and dovecote at Crakehall were all reroofed in 1466 and the manorial accounts show Thomas Harrison repairing the machinery of the mill (16 days at 5 pence per day). A wagonload of timber for repairs was brought from Burstall Woods and two shillings and fourpence was spent on an iron spindle and other ironwork for the mill. John Appleton and John Burell did the stonework, charging nine shillings and fourpence for carriage of roofing slabs from Leyburn, and thirteen shillings and fourpence for a wagonload of sand and gravel "from the Yore next Massham" and seven quarters of lime. They did 22 days work at 5d per day. Seven years later another major round of roof repairs was carried out in the village.

In 1466 the Earl of Warwick spent 46s 10d, an enormous sum for those days, on iron railings for his horse stud at Crakehall. Middleham was a favourite home of the Earl of Warwick and later of the Duke of Gloucester, who seem to have taken an active interest in the administration of the estate. When they were in residence at Middleham Castle the whole Lordship was affected. Warwick, a great horse enthusiast, established stud farms at Crakehall and Middleham, as well as in his other great estate at Sheriff Hutton. The bailiff of Crakehall had to purchase £20-worth of oats and hay from his tenants to supply the Crakehall stud in 1466.

The manorial records repeatedly mention two buildings in Great Crakehall which were clearly important. The Stanehouse, probably meaning the stone house, was probably the manorial office. Apart from the watermill it was probably the only stone-built domestic building in the village. There are no identifiable records of it after 1600. The other building of special interest was the chapel. This stood in its own enclosure called Chapel Garth, which is now the garden of Crakehall House. If this was a chapel for the use of the Lord of the Manor, then it is possible that the Stanehouse was also on the site of Crakehall House. In his History of Richmondshire (1908) Edmund Bogg wrote :

Feeding the household at Middleham when the lord was in residence was a major undertaking. Some of Middleham Castle's deerparks were used to fatten beef cattle and raise sheep for the castle, but this could not satisfy the demand. In ten weeks, Warwick's household consumed 40 oxen, 200 sheep, 59 hens and 22 quarts of "ordinary brew". To make up the deficiency of the Middleham home farm, the manor bailiffs were expected to purchase surplus produce from the tenants. When the Earl of Salisbury was at Middleham, raising Yorkist supporters during the Wars of the Roses, more than half of the surplus grain from Snape was bought for Middleham Castle for £14. In 1486 Crakehall provided cattle and ale worth £7-17-8, and 10 quarters of hay, while more cattle were bought from Bainbridge for more than £18. Farm production must have been well above subsistence level by this time, for such reserves of grain and stock to be on hand. With farms and land still unlet in the village, even in 1469, rents presumably stayed low and there was scope for considerable expansion.

Following the short reign of Gloucester as King Richard III, his defeat at the battle of Bosworth and the accession of King Henry VII, the Lordship of Middleham became a crown estate. Middleham Castle no longer had a resident lord, and the manorial records become routine and less informative. Indeed, from this time the importance of the manor court seems to have declined gradually, and by Elizabeth's reign it was concerned mainly with hearing complaints of petty misdemeanours against the village customs - allowing livestock to stray onto the roads, failing to ring pigs, neglecting road repairs. Offenders were fined a few pence. The only substantial fines imposed during this period were for "breaking the common pinfold" and for the occasional fight, such as when John Scurfield was fined 10s for "making an affray and drawinge bloode upon Rauph Mason". Adam Middleham, Steward of the Court, added a note to the official record: "John Scurfield as I am now reliably informed, haith no goods" and so was unable to pay.

The emphasis on maintaining the pinfold that is found in the court records reflects one of the problems of open field farming. There were few restraints on straying livestock, and the absence of hedges and permanent fences meant that they could soon do serious damage to crops. By the sixteenth century the farmers were regularly electing "bylawmen" to police the common pastures to ensure that individual farmers were not exceeding their farms' stints and to impound straying animals, for which they would extract fines from their owners. They were particularly keen to keep out animals from neighbouring villages, not an easy task when the big pastures like Scroggs and Hollow Moor were on the village boundaries. In 1618, in a legal dispute about the boundary of Scroggs pasture between Crakehall and Cowling, many witnesses described how, if the cattle from Cowling "did escape and depasture in the said Scroggs out of the grounds of the Lordship of Cowling they were driven to Crakall and there impounded by the bylawmen and inhabitants of Great Crakall, and paid outlowsings."br />

2. The yeoman farmers

By the end of the 16th century some of the old families in the village had built themselves into substantial yeomen. The Jackson, Storey, Ward and Collinson, and in Little Crakehall the Clarke and Lucas families enlarged their land holdings by renting the old demesne lands of the manor, by acquiring the tenancies of other farms as they became vacant, and by leasing farms from Coverham Abbey. They were also gradually able to purchase small pieces of freehold land. Their copyhold tenure of the farms belonging to the Lordship of Middleham was almost as good as freehold, since the customary rents were low and sons had the absolute right to take over their fathers' farms. In 1624 Aaron Rathborne concluded from his survey of the manor for the King that while tenants paid a total of £33-15-10d per year in fee farm rents, their land was worth £654 per year. As their status as yeoman farmers and their growing prosperity raised their expectations and education, manorial customs and the manor court increasingly failed to meet their needs for settling disputes with neighbours and landlords. They wanted the written law of the land, and as tenants of the Crown they particularly availed themselves of the Exchequer and Chancery courts. Many boundary disputes and arguments over inheritance and land ownership were settled in this way from the second half of the sixteenth century. The village yeomen, with the assistance of the Steward of the Lordship of Middleham and big local landowners procured several judgements from the Court of Exchequer: to regularise the boundary between Crakehall and Cowling, to define and divide up Hollow Moor between Little Crakehall, Langthorne and Hackforth, and to settle an argument between the Metcalfe family and the tenants of Crakehall over the occupation of a field called Vyvers. The Steward also appealed to the Exchequer court for a legal ruling when a petty official of the Crown took it upon himself to clear-fell most of Burstall Wood, to the substantial loss of the lordship and the tenants of Crakehall and Rand, who relied on it for building timber.

The yeomen were also capable of taking the law into their own hands when they felt particularly agrieved. One action of this kind was so serious that it was eventually tried in the Star Chamber court, which could act with more urgency on matters of law and order than the courts of civil law. In 1538 Lucas Metcalfe of Bellerby Hall leased the old demesne sheepcote, Crakehall Cote, from the Crown, and soon aroused the fury of the villagers by the way he farmed it. Whether they were angry because they had for many years used the land themselves, or whether Metcalfe enclosed some of the common land is not clear. However, fourteen "ill disposed and riotous" farmers waylaid Metcalfe in Crakehall "arraid with bows, bills, swords and bucklers, pitchforks, pikestaffs....... and there beat, wounded and willfully had intended to have murdered Lucas and his servant". The verdict is not recorded, but a good British compromise was probably reached, because when Lucas's widow Katherine renewed the lease in 1575, she offered to compensate the village farmers with some of her grazing in Newton le Willows (probably on Nomans Moor) and her meadow in Crakehall Ings.

It is not surprising that there were armed men in the village at this time. The Wars of the Roses were only a couple of generations past, and military duty was still a part of the system of land tenure, as well as a national duty. Concerned about war with France, Henry VIII passed acts requiring all able bodied men to practice archery, and held musters of armed men to check on the readiness of the country for war. In 1539 at the muster in York there were 19 armed men from Great Crakehall and 9 from Little Crakehall, and 49 from Bedale and Aiskew. A generation later Queen Elizabeth learned that in the far north the people's allegiance was still to the great northern baronial families rather than the Crown. In 1569 the Percy, Neville and Dacre families fermented a revolution (the "Rising of the North"), ostensibly for religious reasons, which gathered supporters from large parts of the North Riding. In the neighbourhood of Crakehall only the Latimers at Snape Castle actively opposed the uprising. The rebels attacked Durham, then proceeded south through the North Riding, raising supporters everywhere, including Crakehall and Bedale, as they went, and attacked and occupied Snape Castle. Most of the local people joined, or were 'persuaded' to join the rebels. They soon regretted it. The Queen's army, aided by squabbles between the rebel groups, soon suppressed the uprising and made examples of the ringleaders. Five men were hanged, including three from Crakehall - William Harrison, John Ward and Thomas Symondson - perhaps at Gallow Flatt alongside the road to Bedale. Another twenty five men from Crakehall were fined and pardoned. The local leader, Symon Digby from Aiskew, was hung, drawn and quartered. We have no way of knowing how sincerely the people of Crakehall supported the avowed religious aims of the uprising. The Abbeys were generally regarded as good landlords and the tenants of Coverham and Easby Abbeys in Crakehall may have felt resentment at the financial repercusions of the dissolution of the monasteries. Their farms were kept in the hands of the Crown and the tenants were not afforded the protection of copyhold tenure enjoyed by the tenants of the Lordship of Middleham. By about 1600 the rents being paid for ex-Coverham Abbey farms had increased to about twice those of Lordship of Middleham ones of equivalent size in Crakehall. However, even if the religious changes of Tudor England were affecting the farmers' pockets the punishment meted out to those involved in the rising of 1569 must have delivered a clear message that in future they should stay at home and concentrate their efforts on improving their farms and tending their families.br />