The W G Hoskins Lecture 1999

‘Commons and the livelihoods associated with them’ presented by Alan Everitt.

The tenth Hoskins lecture

5 June 1999

The tenth W. G. Hoskins lecture on the 5th June 1999 was given by Alan Everitt, who was welcomed back to the department, of which he had been the head, for fourteen years. The subject of his talk was ‘Commons and the livelihoods associated with them’.

Professor Everitt began by pointing out that W.G. Hoskins, in association with Dudley Stamp, had written in the 1960s about commons, a subject which had subsequently received little attention until recently. Some of Hoskins’ conclusions are now being revised, but his main one was true – considerable attrition of England’s commons had indeed occurred over the last 30 years. This conclusion was supported by Professor Everitt’s research which indicates that today commons cover only about three percent of England whereas in 1690 the figure had been around twenty-five per cent. Today commons are mainly concentrated in the fells and moors of the north and west, although there are a good number of examples in parts of lowland England, especially in Hampshire and Surrey, each with over 15,000 acres.

Previously the situation was more complex with many more survivals in the lowlands into the nineteenth century, particularly in Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Sussex. Commons had persisted close to London before its inexorable growth passed over and round them. Many of the place names in London indicate their past as commons, for example Hyde Park, Wimbledon Common, Hackney Downs and Wormwood Scrubs. A nineteenth-century railway brochure advertised the wonderful opportunities for walking amongst wild flowers and woods close to its line from the capital to Tunbridge Wells.

In other parts of the country there was, in the nineteenth century, a similar situation to that of the London area, for example in the Black Country, the Potteries and in the vicinity of the ‘new town’ of Coalville in Leicestershire.The writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Daniel Defoe, Celia Fiennes and Robert Plot give some indication of the complex reality behind Hoskins’ ‘peasant economy’.

At this point Professor Everitt defined ‘common’. He was speaking here of the common wastes outside the common fields and meadows. In fact ‘commons’ were much more numerous away from areas where common fields were the norm, as in the Midlands. The term ‘waste’ as applied to commons should not be taken as meaning ‘useless’. The ‘wastes’ were certainly more intractable and not intensively cultivated, in fact usually scrub, moor and woodland, but such areas had their uses. Quite often commons were separate from the rest of the parish, but important because they broadened the economy of the whole area. In places commons coalesced to form larger areas as, for example, in the east Derbyshire woodlands.

There are about 400 ‘greens’ in England, but relatively few are village greens, although some were planned at the centres of villages especially in north-east England. More typically greens tend to be part of common land hamlets, and are not usually represented in records until late medieval or early modern times.

It was also emphasised that common land was not public property and had not been since the tenth century. Usually it belonged to manorial lords who allowed certain rights of use by their tenants – the commoners (rather than the whole population); such rights varied considerably from place to place. In fact there were frequent conflicts of interest between the lords and peasants, as well as between parishes where there was inter-commoning.

We do not know how much common land was lost because of parliamentary enclosure in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, although it must have been at least two-and-a-quarter million acres, and possibly as much as three-and-a-half million. The piecemeal private enclosure that had taken place from medieval times continued right through to the nineteenth century, especially in those parts of England where common fields were not the norm. For example, Kent probably lost 70,000 acres by piecemeal enclosure, with possibly three million acres in the whole of England.

Kent is the county of professor Everitts’ youth and he described it as being typical of old woodland country, with twenty-five percent of its area still covered by woodland and commons compared with largely woodland-free Leicestershire, which is typical of old common field country. In regions of old woodland, pieces of common are much more likely to have survived despite piecemeal enclosure, with 240 commons still in Surrey and 186 in Hertfordshire. In such areas the commons in adjacent parishes are often linked to form chains. The decision to reduce the amount of common land in the old woodland areas was often taken by the manorial lords, who, along with other enclosers, used quarter sessions, private legal agreements and personal agreements to accomplish their aims. Other enclosure occurred because of the need for land for industrial development, and for the construction of public buildings such as hospitals and workhouses.

Also significant was the small-scale encroachment by landless people, who tended ot drift towards the commons and wastes. There was a widespread belief that if one could build a house overnight, with smoke coming out of the chimney in the morning, then one had a right to live there. Although there was no legal backing for this belief, the wastes and commons became the homes of squatters, particularly in areas of weak manorial control. The method of house construction may have been developed from those used for seasonal shielings. Such dwellings tended to be scattered but could nevertheless form the basis of an industrial settlement. Their successors may still be seen today, after several re-buildings, usually with very little garden.

Some of the typical occupations of the commons are well-known to local historians, for example pottery and tile making. Others however, particularly those that developed since medieval times, are not so well-known. Examples include spooners and hassock, hurdle, hone (i.e. Whetstone) and broom makers. They may well be under-represented in documents because occupations were often combined, particularly with farming and inn-keeping. It must be remembered that many products that seem unimportant today were essential in former times, for example wooden shovels, scythes and sickles.

Some areas in the country became associated with specialist crafts, often because of localised raw materials. Brandon in Suffolk was important for gun flint manufacture, Wymondham in Norfolk for spoons, and the Chilterns of Hertfordshire for wood products such as spoons and shovels. Castle Donington was associated with basket-weaving based on the withy banks alongside the Trent. Coleshill, a detached part of Hertfordshire, had potters’ earth that was used for domestic earthenware and Cove Common in Hampshire had thirteen potteries at one time, peat for fuel being a major locational factor.

Woodland occupations were definitely the most important with a wide range of products including hurdles particularly around Beaconsfield and Chalfont St Giles; scrubbing brushes and brooms, notably around Croydon, using the butcher’s broom shrub; spindles and butchers’ skewers from the spindle tree; and brooms from the bast of trees. Further resources were the fifty varieties of willow as well as wild dogwood, hazel, alder, rushes and sedges. Apparently trivial items such as goose grass (for feeding geese of course) and nettles (for green dye) were part of the economy. Even as the area of the commons declined, many of us can remember itinerant gypsy women selling wooden clothes pegs earlier this century.

The commons were thus areas of humble materials, humble products and humble people, yet they could give rise ot important settlements. They were also often areas of nonconformity, including religious nonconformity. The people who lived there were linked by a kind of bush telegraph, with news carried by travelling tinkers, chapmen, drovers, gypsies, horse dealers, even brigands and smugglers who met at public houses, fairs and, in particular, at market places.

In conclusion Professor Everitt stressed that every settlement that developed on the commons has a distinctive history. Such setlements were often marked by people with strong individuality, even if they were low on the social scale.

At the end of the lecture, questions were asked about the position of commons in relation to county and parish boundaries. There does seem to be a relationship in many areas but there are exceptions. Hertfordshire/Middlesex boundary was drawn quite late through a line of commons so that former parishes were divided, leaving places like North and South Mimms on either side. Regarding the relationship between religious nonconformity and commons we must beware of being too deterministic, although Quaker meeting houses are frequently on or near them. However, there is little support for a connection in the Surrey/Sussex/ Hampshire area, perhaps because influential individuals living there managed to hinder the development of nonconformity.

Other questions were concerned with the perceptions of the inhabitants of the commons as they declined. Professor Everitt replied that there was considerable variation across occupations with some, like water-crock making, lasting well into the twentieth century but, he added, we must not be to obsessed by ‘decline’, because decline of every economy is inevitable in the long-term.

At the end of his talk Professor Everitt received warm applause from the appreciative audience for a memorable Hoskins lecture as befitted the last one of the twentieth century. After the vote of thanks by Vernon Davis, members went to Marc Fitch House for another excellent tea organised by our ever-faithful Chris Draycott, and the opportunity to buy items from the book sale which raised the sum of £143 [disappointingly much less than in previous years, ed.].

From an original report by Alan Fox