The Cattle

Once the husbandmen had reasonable access to leys and meads with a reduced herd would they find it sufficient to keep the remainder well fed and still be able to make butter or cheese? Did they sell off the best summer fed calves at market and keep back the less valuable to rear from? Or would they buy in new cows in calf, or already calved and in milk?The Bourton husbandmen kept and reared many of their own calves to yearlings and on to heifers. How many could they support? There is no evidence of the vicar collecting tithes from autumn selling of excess cows, which means each had sufficient feed and accommodation to winter them.

The number of cows once allowed on Cropredy's 56.5 yardlands and the thirtysix "cottages commons" with rights for two beasts gave a town herd of around three hundred and fifty head of cattle. After the new 1575 ruling the herd was down to about two hundred and sixty. From the arable point of view this represented a lot of lost manure. Replacing oxen by horses could have caused a shortage of hay and a need for more commons, as horses had no rights of commonage. In fact horses had few rights being late comers and without customs to deal with them. They had to use beast commons and had been taking over some of the cow stints. The vicar occasionally included horses with the cows to pay their beast tithes, but there is no proof that on other lists the beasts were always cows. Perhaps in that way the oxen's rights were just taken over by the horse. Bourton had also reduced their quota to four cows per yardland. Claydon managed things quite differently. They needed to keep up their cheese production as well as corn and kept three horses, five cows and forty sheep per yardland. In Wardington the husbandmen may have regarded arable as more important than cheese and allowed five horse commons, two breeders in winter and thirty sheep per yardland. Both these parishes had sorted out a horse quota. Only Bourton and Cropredy had solved their rights using the same quota, possibly worked out as they walked away from Saint Mary's church service each week. Needs and solutions varied under similar land conditions. It would be interesting to follow up the milch cows, butter and cheese in Claydon and Wardington. Twenty miles away at Stoneleigh, Warwickshire they also had a mixed pasture area, but with different stints. The husbandmen could keep twelve cows, sixty sheep and three horses on a yardland. The yard land measured 28 acres. Their three Field system had less arable, growing mainly rye and oats [Alcock N.W. Stoneleigh Villagers 1597-1650 p5/6. Univiversity of Warwick: Open Studies 1975].

The vicar uses Lammas day for the collection of money due to him from the town cattle. Lammas day on the old calander was the 1st of August. In 1681 the A. manor's owner Mr Boothby allowed the kyne from Holyrood to Lammas "to goe depasture and feed and to be received and taken in all and every the common fields and comonable places of Cropredy..." Cropredy fallow commons were open from May the 3rd, Holyrood day, until Lammas. Sometimes a testator left a calf as a legacy and mentions Holyrood day as a suitable delivery day so that it could join the herd [E. Lumberd 1558 (pp 175/6)].

The vicar wrote in his personal accounts [c25/2 f8] the names of those he had let his beast commons to at "hollorode " 1615. No other year has been saved to record what he did with them before and after that season.Thomas Holloway was leasing an extra two yardlands with his sons and therefore had eight extra beast commons. He did not always need these and sublet them to some of his fellow townsmen.

The beast commons mentioned by the vicar are definitely not ones belonging to cottagers [c25/3 for 1614]. There were a few cottagers with no common rights and in many households there were extra couples who needed a cow. They could only have one if a farmer could spare a beast common. We know the vicar and Arthur Coldwell [50] did this, but have no idea how many other husbandmen set some of their cow quota. The tithe books for husbandmen cannot help as Cropredy's is missing. Bourton has a milch, sheep and colt tithe book, but can we be sure the vicar collected from the real tenant or the subtenant? Cottagers we know could get extra commons as Palmer [59], who had no yardland, owned five cows at the time of his death in 1631. In the cottagers commons list he had two. The vicar set him one in 1615 and other farmers were allowing him two more which meant the family could follow a trade of butter and cheese making. In the Holloway farm accounts Thomas wrote [c25/2 f8]:

Wam Corbett [35] had married in 1610 the youngest daughter of Richard Hentlow from the last farm down Creampot. They lived there with Doretee's brother John (p604). Her father had farmed five yardlands, but now the land was sublet and a few couples were living in the house. While the Corbett's were saving for a lease they had already started their family as two daughters were baptised in Cropredy. They left in 1617, but meanwhile a house cow was essential. Also in the house was Manasses Plivie, an educated man, his wife and first son, and another couple so that there were seven adults and three children to feed.

Charles Allen [44] (p610) had a cottage with haybarn attached and already had a common, but they required another as he began to climb the farming ladder. Their maid, Ann Bostocke was an extra adult to feed, she came to them in 1615 from the vicarage (p88).

William Shotswell [27] (p470) married Annes (born in 1591), the eldest daughter of William Watts the weaver and took up lodgings in his father-in-law's cottage at the corner of Newstreet Lane and Creampot. They married in 1612 and must begin to support themselves by having a cow. Movement up the ladder and down to retirement was very dependent on local opportunities and keeping community assets like cow commons for townsmen only.

Thomas Palmer [59] (p447) could be either from the miller's family, or the labourer's of Hellhole. I think the later to be correct. Thomas married Ellen Mosely in 1584 and they had three sons and two daughters. The eldest appears in the Easter lists. One job he did in 1614 was to collect in the "cotengers tithes" at Lammas time. They needed commons for five cows.

John Clyfton [7] (p495) lived in the shepherd's cottage belonging to the manor farm [8] with his wife Abishag nee Ryuxe whom he married in 1608. A son, Joseph, had just been born and extra money was put towards a cow, but why did he fail to pay the vicar?

This evidence tells us something that few other sources can. The couples in Cropredy (if they were not labourers) did not wait for an empty cottage before marrying, or for their father to die or vacate the property. Married couples under another's roof, or the less well off in a farm cottage, must take every chance to increase their income by having a spare common for the summer. Nuclear families were a luxury Cropredy had no space to indulge. Only severe epidemics had enabled their ancestors to have fewer in the house. Once the population began again to slowly rise then a housing shortage returned. They had to start using the system to gain a foothold on the agricultural ladder to survive and support themselves.

Two of these couples were starting their life together and only the longer married Palmers, Allens and Clyftons had their own place, yet this did not prevent the young couples from starting a family and increasing their meagre income. Thesixth man William Lyllee [29] was in his seventies sharing the house with a married daughter Elizabeth and her husband John Hall. When he died he still had control over some of his land. It is not sure why he took up this extra common unless his wife had increased her butter or cheese making.

The last two commons were set to Mr Hall. Was this John Hall [29] or William Hall [6]? I do not think it was Richard Hall [34] and Wm Hall already had ten cows. Holloway did not add another number in the margin of folio 8 after Lyllee's which could mean Mr Hall lived in the same property and was the son-in-law John Hall (p584).

Why did they all "pay the herd" except Charles Allen? Could Allen acting as a bailiff be collecting the A manor rents for Mr Coldwell and at the same time be making arrangements with the man responsible for the herd? The herdsman was Arthur Evans of Round Bottom [54]. The vicar was collecting 10s per beast common and the subtenant paid the herd's fee. Out of the vicar's 10s the landlord received 8s for rent.

Local information about the land and every householder's rights would be available to all their neighbours and the subject of great interest to every townsman. The distribution of strips, meads and leys down to their common rights were remembered and needed for the making of terriers. From the parish boundary right to the centre, all matters had to be known and any disputes taken to the Manorial Court where fines were paid by those who either neglected their duties, or trespassed on others' land and rights. Tithe payments, mostly resented, were especially known down to the nearest farthing. Many had fantastic memories, but now the school had educated several of the younger parishioners, and a few families were able to reach for a pen if they kept any farm accounts. In the second decade of the seventeenth century the vicar in his late sixties was writing memos to himself, but no wonder when he had not only the Cropredy herd, but the Bourtons, Prescote, Wardington, Mollington and Claydon's to collect. The Bourton tithe book which has survived shows the enormous amount of detail required to collect small amounts of money [c25/4].

Part of Thomas Holloway's income was derived from titheable stock so he required the details of all market sales brought by his servant, and no doubt discussed the sales with whoever he met. To collect in a few coppers here and a few there (very occasionally paid in silver [c25/7 f20]), Thomas must know exactly the number of each parishioner's titheable stock. From the husbandman's point of view tithes would be seen as a huge drain on his annual turnover for they were taken not from clear profit, but from their total production and so relentlessly the months followed each other setting their individual tasks and payments. Once begun the work could become the man's master and often a cruel one in times of disease in stock or corn.

The vicar's collection of "cotengers" tithes is given in full for 1614, and the changes in the amounts paid, or the occupier have been extracted for 1615. The brackets again indicate the position of the cottage in the town [c25/3 f1v, f2, f3v]:

On the four years which remain of the vicar's Cropredy tithes cottagers had often to let out their commons and it shows how frequently the right was sublet over the four years [c25/3]. Edmond Tanner [39] had one of his own and another "hyred" in 1614. Did this mean he had hired just the cow common, or the cow as well [f1v]? John Truss [33] had two beasts, one of his own and the other was Thomas Sutton [42] the tailor's horse common. Another year Sutton's daughter Jane has a cow on this horse common. This is one of the examples of a horse and cow common being one and the same. Sutton leased a half yardland parcel and after Jane married William Langley he also leased land and had a horse common. Thomas Vaughan [23], yeoman, had Richard Breedon's [37] horse common and William Carter's [58] cow common as well as two of his own. Richard Hunt [5], a weaver, had his own and Widow Whyte's [46]. An elderly Thomas Cox [49] lets his to Thomas Fenny [43] at the top of Church Street. Henry Hill [58] a butcher who lived next to William Carter the collarmaker had the whitbaker William Hill's [20] cottage common. Thomas Densey the blacksmith [13] had other cottager's commons in 1615. In 1614 Wyatt showed his future inclination to have more than anyone else, by having three while still just a craftsman, though farming was beginning to dominate his life and he was on a rising spiral, possibly with the blacksmithing and veterinary money helping him buy into leased parcels. In 1615 Wyatt paid 4.5d and in 1616 had "2 new mylch/ one fore vjd deob." [f3v & 5]. In 1617 he had to pay vijd ob [f6v]. Did he have three in 1616 paying 5d for the milking cows and 1.5d for the cow not yet in calf?

The vicar had paid Thomas Palmer to go round and collect these tithes by cancelling his own. Thomas Palmer obviously knew what was due. He followed the vicar's lists which worked round the town on the usual route. The problem of the actual amounts they owed is not always solved on the four lists available. Many paid 3d one year 2d the next which was right, and others paid twopence halfpenny every year. Huxeley paid three years 2d and one 3d. Wyatt's may give the reason, for sometimes a cottager's cow had not had a calf and so remained a foremylch? Or should we take note of Wam Tymes below who had a cow in milk, but no calf? The Bourton cottagers pay 2, 2.5d and 3d per cow in 1614 [c25/4 f5]. Toby Kely (who left the church early p30) paid 5d for two cows on both years while Margery Sabean only paid 2d [f8v]. The explanation may be found in Wam Tymes payments:

Was this the answer? A cottager paying an extra halfpenny if the calf survived. Cottagers did not pay a calf tithe of eightpence for every calf born, or a live calf for every ten born. The diminishing of the cottager's breeder meant they could not rear a bull calf, so was the extra halfpenny for a female calf? Was the cottager's tithe for their cow common based on their use of the land, or in lieu of milk?

In Bourton "Edward Shepherd ...fowre new mylch beass ---xd" was a cottager paying 2.5d a beast, but Thomas Gardner, who was a husbandman with two yardlands only paid 2d a beast "Thos gardner"/ [paid for] "8 new mylch beass"[and the vicar adds] "for the/ mylke receved --xvjd" [c25/4 f2v,f8].

Generally cattle bred for milking or ploughing were tithe free except for the payment of a calf. Cropredy was one of the parishes which ended up owing a milk tithe, but could they have agreed to pay a milch tithe instead as Thos Gardner had [c25/4 f8]?To pay a milk tithe meant taking a tenth of all their milk over the six summer months to the vicar. The three days of milk were payable in Glamorgan on the last Monday in May and the following five months. Or they could choose to take a cheese instead [Emery F.V. West Glamorgan Farming 1580-1620 ].

Whatever the local customs were, they all needed a shelter near the farm close for housing the calves, if they were to survive. Did the vicar still need a tithe for a calf that died after a few weeks?

There is a collection of folios put together for the two Cropredy manor farms, the millers and cottagers cow commons [c25/3], but none like Bouton's which gave such conflicting payments. A few had "2 beass bought iiijd" tithe at 2d each and "George Watts viij beass --xvjd" which appeared straight forward. How are we to interpret Henry Hall's of Bourton "xv beass wherof 3 fore mylch/ 4 heifers --- ijs iijd" adding a penny for a colt [c25/4 f3]? There were two possible solutions as to how they arrived at the tithe of 27d:

Did the vicar receive a tithe of twenty pence for the eight cows? Having the largest farm in Great Bourton the Halls were able to rear their own followers.They had three cows too young to be in calf. If these foremylch were charged at a penny each, and the four heifers who had had no more than one calf were also rated at a penny this brought the total to twentyseven pence. The other solution was to take the older cows and four heifers together as twelve cows rated at twopence each and the three foremylch still at a penny, then the same total is arrived at. Which was right? The second corresponds to more of the payments than the first, but then William Gardner's foremylch cost him 1.5 pence. "Wm gardner 7 [which were] 4 new / 3 foremylch--xijd ob" [c25/4 f12]. Gardner paid 2d for each new cow and the foremylch 1.5 each.

"george hopkins fyve / new mylch wherof one / was bought & one cast /---xjd ob." The dead calf loosing the vicar half a pence [c25/4 f4v]? There must be a missing clue which would clear this little problem up.

The largest Cropredy herd recorded in a May inventory was bound to be on a farm which leased the most yardlands. In 1578 Nuberry left on the 4 yardland Brasenose Manor farm [8]:

Widow Nuberry ran the farm with her son, but after twenty years the son had to leave. The Woodroses arrived in the first decade of the seventeenth century. After a few years Robert and his son split up the land and by 1614 Nicholas paid tithes [c25/3 f1v] (Fig.16.20):

Nicholas had twelve beasts on his three yardlands leaving his father Robert one yardland which could support "4 new mylch beast...xd" [f1v]. In this tithe book from 1614 to 1619 the father and son kept between fourteen and seventeen cows on those four yardlands. Not all their cows had produced their calves by lammas day. In 1616 they had "13 kyne where of six wth calves"[f4v], and that year his father was down to only two "mylch beass" from his allowed four. After each calf was born the vicar was due an eightpenny tithe, but they could refrain from paying until as late as the tenth calf. That calf, worth about 6s-8d, was then delivered to the vicar. Over six years the record shows Nicholas paid four tithe calves, having had forty out of a possible seventytwo calves from his herd of twelve. Robert for some reason never gave the vicar a tithe calf. In 1614 Nicholas sold off seven calves, which meant they were not rearing beef at the expense of cheese making. Why then were so few calves born?

On the A manor Mr Coldwell [50] paid a tithe on twelve beasts. In 1614 the vicar adds "I had a tyth calfe against ester which was abov one [h]e had not reconed" [c25/3 f1v]. Arthur paid a tithe calf every year having had ten calves survive from the twelve cows, a very high rate. In 1615 Thomas Holloway had sold back a tithe calf to Mr Coldwell for 6s-8d, which confirmed he had had ten calves. The vicar realised that Coldwell's farm had rights for more cows having over three yardlands and not wishing to loose any tithe he jotted this down:

"Remember mr coldwell may kepe/ more 3 or 4 beass of wch must pay/ to whom he letteth them at holerode/ day"[c 25/3 f7]. Here is proof of the vicar checking all the commons to see who had them from farmers. It also proves that subtenants must pay tithes.

There were three millers in Holloway's book. Palmer [1] at the Lower Cropredy mill who kept four beasts in 1615 and three in 1616 and Robert Lord [1a] who kept a milch cow on Palmer's land. The last was Mansell at the next mill down river from Palmer's. Some years Mansell had three milch cows at Slat mill and on other years four.

Thomas kept a note in his Bourton book of all the calves born. In 1616 Andrew Hall, who had taken over from his father Henry, paid a tithe calf to Holloway, but apparently "oweth for another when/ yt falleth" [c25/4 f13v]. It was very necessary to know if it had prematurely "cast," died, been purchased with a cow, or a cow bought without the calf and whether a husbandman sold or kept them. William Tymes we already saw had bought a cow "without calfe." Two other examples from Bourton were [c25/4 fols. 5 & 18]:

In Bourton Widow Smyth was employing Thomas Tayler. We can follow her entries from 1615 to 1619 as the vicar kept a detailed tithe record for every calf [c25/4]:

As every calf was noted it formed a tenth of the "driving tithe." The vicar might be paid his tithe after only seven or eight had been born. Those who took a calf before ten had been born needed some money in return. A calf was presented before witnesses and Thomas wrote down that he had returned the excess amount. "My gyfte of xxd to mr gardner/ were in the presence of James/ bachler the tyth calfe but eight./1619" [c25/4 f26]. Holloway returned 1s-8d which was 4d too much. Was this the "gyfte"?

Thomas kept an ongoing record of the calves each husbandman owned and drove it forward to the following year as he did with Widow Smyths. Driving tithes were written up in several ways:

When Thomas wrote down surnames he often used only lower case letters. Not long before Thomas died he wrote down all the Bourton tithe calves he had had for 1619 and noted that Thomas Plant, James bachler, Thomas hytchman, Rychard gardner and Thomas gill had all paid a tithe calf, which he had sold at 6s and 8d each. The driving tythes for 1620 were:

Using the number of calves paid for should give an approximate size of the Bourton herd, though it will not give the cows which lost a calf:

Date	Tithed cows	Calves tithed	from cows
1614	220	12	120
1615	227	15	150
1616	213	9	90
1617	237	22	220
1618	180	19	190
1619	221	10	100

The total of 87 tithe calves from the 870 calves born must be reduced by an unknown number of calves given early before ten had actually been produced, and some "gift" money paid back. In 1618 more calves were paid for than milch cows tithed. Quite a few died. Other stock to fill the quotas were brought into the parish as milking cows without their calf, which had been sold on separately. In 1619 Thomas Holloway summed up his yearly profits from beast and calves, not including the tithes given as money, for Bourton as "calves 15 - xljs viijd" [c25/4 f25v], which is irritatingly five more than listed. Using the number of yardlands multiplied by four gave around 240 cows, which was not reached on any of the years according to the vicar's paid up tithes. Was this the same at Cropredy? We know that Lucas [2] had cows in Wroxton and had to pay a tithe to the vicar of that parish.

The vicar had to sell most of the calves to give him an income, but a few he "kylled in my house." He wrote "I dyd spent yt in house," or "wch I kylled against myd lent Sunday" on the 28th of March 1617. "Kyled in my house/ one whytsen eve." Several he sold back, or locally to Harry Hill [58] the butcher (p475). Who else ate veal?

The farmers sometimes went to pay tithes with a neighbour to act as witness. Others like George Hopkins of Bourton sent his wife and servant Anne Tomkins. The vicar gave Mrs Hopkins 4d and Anne 1d (p85). Was this good luck money or a portion of the money he saved sending a calf to market, whenever he was paid in cash?

Only a few paid tithes on store cattle. Marie Fox of Bourton paid 1.5d in 1617 for one [c25/4 f18]. It would seem the cow commons were kept mainly for the milch cow. Nuberry had bullocks [8] and Hunts [16] had a bullock shed and stored sides of beef in the house. The parish bulls were practically invisible in the records. In Bourton they mention: Thomas Gardner of Little Bourton "he had bull" [c25/4 f5v] and Thomas Smyth of Bourton had "viij bease wth A Breeder --xviij£" in 1612 [MS. Will Pec. 51/1/2]. Bulls escaped the payment of a tithe. Would they belong to the whole of the town and graze the aftermath on the Bullmore a meadow which bordered on the Hentlowe's farm [35]. Who other than "Evan's the herd" would be responsible for changing the bulls? Vaughan had a small bull calf and Woodrose's [8] in 1628 had two bulls. At the end of the sixteenth century beef began to increase in price until it was more profitable than hides.

In ninety Cropredy inventories only sixtytwo mention cows, though some of the elderly who had given up their cow had kept an interest in sheep or poultry. The twentyeight included ten widows, a spinster, a retired gentleman, yeoman and husbandman, a shepherd still a servant, a student, two labourers, another old servant, and three artisans who left no record of their particular craft. Other craftsmen who are entered as paying cow common tithes to Thomas Holloway had ceased to own a cow. They were two collarmakers, a weaver and a baker. Rawlins may have turned the cowshed into his workshop [45]. Many bachelors had not reached the cow ownership stage, and those who had retired or reduced their assets made up the rest of the cowless inventories. This did not mean they necessarily lived in a household which had no cow, just that some other member of the family had the rights of commonage. Taking care of a house cow is work for a reasonablably fit person [woman] who can get out and about seven days of the week, unless they can afford to delegate the task to a younger member of the household. In their lifetime almost every child, servant and married couple had contact with cows. On settling into a farm or cottage where they were allowed common rights they continued that close contact until they decided to allow the next generation to have the common rights and that person had to have their name on the copyhold, unless they sublet for money and lost the milk, butter or cheese. Some could never let go, old William Lyllee [29] kept on one cow and even took on a second in 1615 (p229).

After the heriot was catered for the testator had to distribute the rest, either to his wife, son or daughter. Those children who had stock out on trust could add to them as the Howse's [28] son and daughter would have done on their widowed mother's land. What Rychard Howse left to his son Rechard in 1550 has already been quoted on (p71). His daughter Margaret was to have "another cowe to make with them she already hath in kyne and syxe shepe or their wooll to make with them that she hath halfe a score... off shepe to be delyvered at Martymasse next comynge..." with many other household items. He left them in trust as part of her future dowry. All this widow Ayllys must attend to. Rechard and Margaret would, like so many other husbandmen's children, arrive at marriage complete with cows. Unless the father died before their childrens marriage the cows would have been given up to the son or daughter long before any will was made. George Watts of Bourton left a cow or 40s to his two youngest at twelve years. Their day would begin with the women and other children outside in the cowhouse or close, milking the cow or herd.

To leave two cows as one man did in 1595, or else £2 each to buy a cow, was a substantial legacy. Toms and Lyllee still kept a cow although elderly. Lyllee living for some years after making a will had to add a codicil to make sure his son-in-law John Lucas [2] had the black cow. Toms [15] left his cow to his daughter Isabell. Lucas, the carpenter, left two cows at Wroxton and one at home (p239). In his will Truss the bachelor shepherd left cows to his brother-in-law William Tustin whose wife had no doubt been attending to their needs, and two to his sister Ellen Bagley who began her married life in Church Lane [19]. Palmer's [59] cows were part of the family business and he left a cow to sister Ann and one to aunt Marian.

Walter Rose, in his book The Village Carpenter, wrote that before the enclosures "the cows grazed with the common herd, and my father's earliest remembrance is of opening the gate for them on their return at the close of day" [Cambridge Univ. Press].

The cows returned home to be tethered in the cowhouse or hovel each evening, where they were to be milked for the second time. The herdsman, at one time Arthur Evans, having tended them during the day, on the various fallow or communal pasture areas. Fresh fallow land was free from dangerous parasites after a years rest under corn. There was also a variety of plants supplying the cows needs as long as they were not over stocking. Over two hundred and fifty could have been returning to the town along Backside. The milch cows for the five farms with an entrance onto Backside had never had a problem of easily finding their gate. These belonged to Cattells [30], Lyllees [29], Howses [28], Robins [26] and Gybbs [25] (chs. 35 & 34). The A. manor's herd coming with the rest of Creampots, so that at least fortyeight would leave Backside to go along Newstreet Lane to the top of Creampot. Coldwell's [50] might then separate off and go straight ahead towards Allen's [44] to enter the farm yard. There were around thirtytwo belonging to Lumberd, Toms and Hunt [14-16] for the three farms around the Green (ch.32). The thirty or so for Church Lane which included the vicar's and the four cottager's cows must leave the Green past Hunt's [16] (ch.33). There were still a further eighty or more to pass down the Long Causeway (ch.31). These might use the back path to Bourton, turning off to their closes or down Belser, to save fouling "The Town of Cropredy."

The lanes after all this traffic would grow more desperate daily, until whoever was responsible took his turn to get them scraped. Anyone who has used a narrow rough lane without cattle knows the weather causes enough problems, but these are rendered almost impassable when only fifty head of cattle pass daily along it. Soon the six inch mire increases to nine or ten and even a mild storm makes it hard to get through without struggling and sploshing along. Cropredy's verges away from the town were wide long before the Parliamentary Enclosures stipulated wide roads, for they had Middle hedges (p18). Width was very necessary to spread the damage and allow the carts a choice of surfaces.

The herdsman would charge for the branding of the cows. Evan's next door neighbour, the cottager Edward Bokingham, kept a brandiron in the boltinge house [55], or was this part of his cooking equipment? Those cows which were well known to their owners acquired names, and most oxen had them, like horses. In his will of 1609 John Cleredge of Great Bourton gave the names of his cows: Browning, Backe, One Eye, Darby and Young Buck. He had another in Woodford which had no name and was a "black hereford cow". Did he mean a heifer, or was this really a Hereford? He described his last one as "a starred herfar," which could mean the white face of a Hereford cow, so perhaps it was not a slip. Seven years before they had had another red "starred" cow. There were many others who named their stock. Vaghan [23] in 1599 left "my black cow which I call Rose" to Ann his wife. Named or not they must all bear the owner's mark.

It would seem that most were black or red. In 1579 Robins [26] had one red calf and one black cow. In 1627 Edward Shepherd of Bourton had a "black cow I bought at Hanwell" and a red heifer. Palmer [59], who collected the "cotengers" tithes, had in 1634 a black cow which "I bought of Truss" [33], he also had two others and a calf, not distinguished by colour. In the cottager's tithe lists Lucas [2] had kept one cow in Cropredy. His wife's father William Lyllee [29] left him a black cow in 1623. In 1640 he left to his own son William two cows he had in Wroxton "the one a whippsawe/ and the other a temarto sawe" (So far no explanation has been found for a whipp sawe and a temarto sawe. A sawe is a saying and a temarto sawe could be a pseudo saying, but what has this to do with his cows?). The carpenter still had one in Cropredy which his wife would need. Only Rede [32] calls his heifer brown in 1609.

Toms [15] who wrote his will in 1607 mentioned "the marked cow I bought at Daventry." If not bought in Cropredy, or a nearby parish, sales were conducted at markets, so that most cows came into the town via a fair or local market. One or two were paid for by a legacy which had to be put forth to increase on Hollerood day. A cautious testator would leave £2 for a cow to be purchased, in case there were not enough cows left after the heriot was paid to the landlord.

The cattle markets mentioned were held at Banbury four miles away, Southam ten to the north, Warwick seventeen to the west and Bicester seventeen to the south. Daventry thirteen miles to the north east was more for sheep, though Toms mentions his purchase of a cow there. The vicar used the services of John Cleredge's son Christopher. Of the two Cleredge brothers, Richard and Christopher, one lived in their father's old house and the other next door. This we know from the vicar's Easter lists. John whose father had had a copyhold until 1552 from the bishop obtained land in 1576 which was once part of the episcopal estate and Christopher in 1612 had a moiety from Cope's of Hanwell [VCH p178]. Christopher had a maid for four out of the eight years and Richard had a maid on three of these years, so they were not poor. They had also received an education at Williamscote school along with many others. "Christopher clerydge wyndere," wrote the vicar [c25/4 f15], for he served as the wool winder (p263), and also took Thomas Holloway's lambs and cattle to market as a dealer, or by contract. The vicar allowing between one and two shillings for the journey. Gentlemen used dealers, but husbandmen would be loathe to spend the profit on paying the dealers expenses, though many had no alternative.

Was Christopher owing Holloway a tithe for twenty cows from the parish which had been sold, or had there been twenty cows belonging to the vicar which he had driven to market and sold? A drover was one of the most trusted men so he had to have a good reputation.

There was a network of drovers roads and green lanes. The Boddington Way was used to connect Cropredy with the Welsh Road. It passed out of Ewe Furlong over Bootham bridge into Clattercote's green lane and on through Claydon to meet the Welsh Road at Appletree. Turning west they could reach the market of Southam which was on the Welsh Road. In wetter weather they might take the higher ridge road. To reach Daventry the Cropredy cattle went via Williamscote to the Banbury Lane and on through Wardington, again meeting the Welsh Road. Or they could go southwards to Banbury market.

It is difficult to obtain the value of a good cow. Not all assessers could give similar prices, even in the same year. Nothing is known about the cows condition or age. In spite of this examples have been taken from some of the sixtytwo inventories and Russell's will, which mentions the sale of two beasts Denzie sold for four pounds and odd money:

Month	Name	Site	Stock in Inventory	Value
2/1577	Rede	[32]	One herford and yerlynge calfe	£2-3s-0d
5/1578	Wd Howse	[9]	iij kyne	£7
2/1578	Robins	[26]	iij beasts i heyffer ij
			...yearlynge calves	£4
11/1583	Wallsall	[13]	a cow	£1-3s-4d

Month	Name	Site	Stock in Inventory	Value
10/1587	Hunt	[16]	xij beests yonge and oulde	£14
			...iij wenynge calves	£1-6s-8d
9/1592	Howse	[28]	vij beases	£9
11/1592	Kynd	[31]	an old cow ij small heikefed	£3-?
			...ij weaning calves	.....12s
3/1593	Wd Devotion	[3]	a cow	£1-10s
3/1599	Vaghan	[23]	ij bease a small bull
			...& j wayning calfe	£5
..1600	Russell	[13]	two bease [will]	£4+
2/1601	R.Howse	[24]	three bease	£3
			...an yearling calfe	.....10s
10/1602	Palmer	[1]	ij bease	£4
8/1602	Watts	[34]	eight bease & iij calves	£11
12/1603	Robins	[26]	x Bease one yearling (+stalls)	£15
4/1609	Hunt	[16]	seven Beasse two yearlinge
			...calves & a weanning Calfe	£20
5/1609	Wd Howse	[28]	six Beast	£12
9/1609	Pratt	[24]	four beast & one heighfer	£7..?
			...twoe calves	£1-10s
12/1614	Cross	[51]	one cow	.....10s
			...ij breeders	£1-6s-8d
2/1616	French	[4]	2 Beast & a Caulfe	£5
3/1616	Watts	[27]	one cowe & a calfe	£3
8/1623	Lyllee	[29]	two beasts	£4-4s
9/1624	Wood	[56]	one Cowe	.....10s
5/1628	Woodrose	[8]	tenn Cowes two bulls and
			...three yeare old heyfers	£27-13s-4d
10/1628	Suffolk	[60]	two heifers & steare	£3
5/1629	Gibbs	[25]	six Cowes & two heyfers	£18
3/1631	Lumberd	[14]	5: beast	£15-3s-4d
5/1631	Devotion	[3]	fower bease & a heaifer	£7
6/1631	Robins	[26]	13 cowes & heyfers & 2 calves	£40
4/1632	French	[4]	7 beastes 1 heifer 2 calves	£18-10s
2/1634	Truss	[33]	two beasts one heifer & two
			...yearlinge Calves	£10
3/1634	Hall	[34]	8 cowes 2 heifers & 4 calves	£24-6s-8d
3/1634	Norman	[48]	one Cowe	£2-6s-8d
10/1634	Wd Devotion	[3]	too beasse	£6
2/1635	Cattell	[30]	three lithel Cowes and a hefer	£6-6s-8d
4/1635	Wyatt	[31]	three beasts	£8
12/1640	Lucas	[2]	one Cowe	£3-6s-8d
3/1641	S.Howse	[9]	fower beasts & a Calf	£14-13-4d

Gibbs, Robins, Hall and Howse had seen a great increase in the value of their stock, for prices had been rising steadily since the mid-sixteenth century. Hunt in 1587 had sixteen head of cattle worth £15-6s-8d. Robins in 1631 had fifteen head of stock worth £40. Both these farmers would appear to have prospered in their generation through their farming. In 1631 we can compare Lumberds five cows which were twice the value of Thomas Devotions. Thomas's cows had not risen in value since his mother's prize cow in 1593 was worth 30s, but widow Em's had doubled and were surely in calf in October 1634? One of miller Cross's was worth only 10s. He also had two breeders worth 13s-4d. In the summer of 1632 the profit from Widow Jone Taylor's cow was only 13s-4d according to her Coton inventory [M.S.Wills Pec.52/4/10]. It is unfortunate that we have no details of individual cows. At Kibworth Dr Howell found that a good cow could be worth 20s in 1550, in 1600 about 40s and by 1630 about 50s [Howell C. Land, Family and Inheritance in Transition p 112. 1983 Camb.Univ. P.].

With four cows allowed for every yardland the testators total stock gave some indication of the amount of land they were leasing when they died. On the other hand the amount of land could also point to the number of stalls the homestall required for winter housing.

The climate in the Midlands always meant some winter protection for the stock had to be provided, either in an open cowpen or a closed cowshed. Around the cowpen they had open hovels whose wooden "scaffolds" were really loft floors. A thatch was sometimes made of haulm or straw for use late in the winter. Furze and wood intended for other uses the following summer when the stock were out on the fallow was often used as roofing on a hovel. Cow pens for winter keeping of stock must go back a long way. The yards were high banked and planted around with a hedge or fence on top. A wooden stockade was often called a "hedge" so that when Denzie of Bourton left "a cowpen hedge" they may have been referring to a wooden fence, or else it could already have been planted with hawthorns to save renewing the more expensive wooden fence. In the same year Thomas Plant, yeoman of Bourton, had an upper yard, a nether yard as well as a cowpen with a hovel and a cowhouse with a scaffold over [MSS Wills Pec. 36/3/5 & 48/1/10]. In Cropredy John Hunt's [16] appraisers found in 1587:

This appeared to be a very full site. The household needs were catered for as well as the stock. The barn having an "Inward Court" behind and the kitchen a backyard with a "Dea house" and kiln (Fig.32.3 p543).

The house survey tried to discover the position of the farm yards, using maps for the redeveloped sites. Cattell's [30] was still there to the west of the house in 1973 and Lyllee's [29] next door must originally have used the middle portion of the close to pen their cows, to the north of their house. Howses [28] site had a farmyard at the Creampot Lane end of the close in 1774. The Robins [26] and Gybbs [25] found ample room to the west of their farmhouses. Huxeley [36] with his long-houses could keep the cows they needed in one bay of the barn [36], and use the grass yard to the rear as a winter pen when necessary. To the west of Howse's farm [9] there is the shape of a building shown on the Enclosure map. There was a track between Solomon Howse's farm and the one to the north [12] connecting their farmyards to the South Field. This was mentioned when the Howse's had added a northern wing right up to this access on the boundary (p527). The manor farm [8] opposite had a cattle pen to the west of the house and so did Springfield [6] across the Long Causeway. On the college map [Clennell B 14. 1/29b] the yards are marked with a cross, perhaps representing a central drainage hole leading to a cess pit? Devotion's [3] is shown on Fig 26.9 p 419.The rest of the farms with their farmyards are looked at in more detail in Part 4.

In the oldest closes they had more room for a cowpen, but they still built a cowhouse for milking and housing cows inside for part of the winter. There seems adequate provision for most which may have avoided the raw job of milking outside for the wife or milk maid. The only doubtful ones are those in Church Lane, but as they had only a small close it was even more essential to provide sheltered accommodation. Richard Howse [24] had required a cowhouse for five beasts plus calves before he died, but when he had five yardlands how had he housed them on his small site?

The stone cowhouse might be built separately, or they used one of the bays in the barn. Over this hay was stored, and some would surely leave out a section of the board floor to allow hay to be pushed down into the manger below. Gybbs [25] cowhouse had "one scaffold one fleake cowe stall," and in Robins [26] cowhouse there were ten "Bease one yearling & bease stalls." Alese Howse [28] had "the scaffold over the beaste and the horse with Rackes, maungers and beastes stall," and Kynd [31] had a cowhouse before 1592. Bokingham's [55] cowhouse, which had one standing, was attached to the four bay barn.

Not all cowhouses were light airy places for the lofts were low and few had wind holes, only some had muck holes to throw out the manure from time to time. If the door was of the stable type, the upper half could be kept back, otherwise the air was exchanged only on the lifting of the wooden latch. Inside the new stone cowhouses the stalls were built to accommodate much slimmer cows than the modern beasts:

The B manor terriers mention cowhouses. Devotions [3] was at the north end of his long building. The high hay door in the north gable being easily reached from the cart so that the hay could be forked into the one bay loft over the cowstalls. In a fifteen and a half foot wide building there was room for five stalls. This was more than he needed and one end would be reserved as a loose box for calves. Springfield [6] had a separate stone and thatched cowhouse of about four bays. Here was room for cows and fodder. The Manor farm [8] had a cowhouse of three bays, also stone walled and thatched, which was situated on the yards north wall fairly near the house allowing drainage into the close behind and on down to the moat below. At Hentlows farm [35] they had only a one bay cow house which was insufficient when he had five yardlands. A hundred years later it was included in their seven bays with the stables, carthouse and pigsties. Rede's terrier taken in 1669 for his farm further up Creampot Lane [32] also had a one bay cowhouse amongst eight bays of buildings. In 1588 that farm was renting two and three quarter yardlands with commons for eleven cows, which could not possibly fit in this one bay. They must have erected a wooden hovel or leased some buildings elsewhere in Cropredy. By 1669 the farm had only one College yardland which went with the site, and no extras, so that their four cows were adequately housed in the small cowhouse. This brings us to the point that from one year to another the farmers' needs could change. The household would grow and then diminish. The parcels of land which went with the holding stayed the same and so did their landlord's buildings. To feed the increased household more land would hopefully become vacant for them to pay the entry fine on and lease until they no longer required it, or the lease ran out. It was expensive to erect temporary buildings, but essential to accommodate stock in the winter, so making wooden hovels with temporary rooves in the cowpen was one solution. Land that was leased could be given up, without too much loss, whereas freehold land could not.

How would they cope with a reduction in the manure? The old balance was greatly altered by increasing leyland and decreasing the arable. The greensward was a permanent feature, not taken out for a few years, but put behind hedges where possible. Yet such grass too needed manure, which could only be supplied by the sheep following the cows. The farmyard manure being saved largely for the barley with a little over for the wheat.

On one yardland the four cows and a pair of horses wintered in a strawed building, or yard with a hovel, were going to have to produce enough manure for nine acres of barley and three of wheat (p305). To produce manure equalling at least three quarters the weight of their feed, four cows needed 15 to 20 lbs of hay, or 20 lbs of mixed barley straw and peas haulm a day. This might produce just under four tons of manure over eight months. From one pair of horses it might be expected that they would produce nearly six tons between them. To this was added the household soils, pig's waste, the old thatch, the wood ashes and food waste. At a very rough estimate there may be only nine plus tons to go out on the nine barley acres and one for the wheat, relying on the residue from the pea roots and sheep to complete the manuring of the land.

There was obviously never enough manure and the winter stock pile was carefully collected from the cowshed and the larger cowpens. The Hunt's well strawed yard was surely the best way for them to collect this manure which the whole family must help to load up into a muck cart. For barley this needed to be done at the end of winter before ploughing the land. The manure was taken to each strip in turn and the fact that the lands were in different parts of the parish was not such a disadvantage when there was no need to split a load between strips. Once on the field the dung was deposited in small heaps five or six paces apart so that they could be spread. Again the women helped if there were not enough men. Smallholdings used all the family. Any muck for the wheat went on in October. The time taken up by the carts travelling to outlying lands was the same for most tenants.

There were muck, or dung carts as some called them at Hanwells [34], Kynds [31], Palmers [1], Howse [28], Devotion [3] and French [4]. There were others, but they did not specify the types of cart the family owned (ch.22). For those who had no muckcart two pannier baskets on the back of a beast would have to be used, or else it was possible to drag it all out on a one horse "sled."

The "muck" or "soile" somehow escaped the appraisers notice before 1628. Why did it suddenly become acceptable to mention it? The first time in Puritan Banbury was in June 1640. When an inventory was taken after the time the dung heap had been transferred to the Open Common Field there was obviously little to be found in the yard, but the value of the prepared strip of land would rise: Hall's [35] inventory was in March, Gybbs and Woodrose in May and Tanner's in September all from the summer period. Suffolk [60] had the household and stable midden valued at 5s in October meaning there were ten loads ready to go on the land at 6d a load. Often the valuable "soils" were in danger of being rain washed down the town ditches to the meadows beyond, unless they had started to collect the effluent in a pit?

The sheep grazing would be carefully monitored to see fair play as they worked across the fallow field. Sheep were there of course not only to control the weeds before they seeded, but to add their essential manure. They also trod and firmed the earth sometimes poached by heavy harvest carts. In some parishes sheep were allowed to graze only on the fallow before it was planted with spring peas and followed by wheat.

The first mention of lime did not occur in Cropredy until October 1670 [c25 f4v]. They must surely have used it before this as other parts of Britain had already proved the value of lime. Merrick noted that by 1578 Glamorganshire had "of late yeares, since the knowledge of lyminge was found, there groweth more plentye of grayne." On Gower limestone had been quarried from outcrops of limestone and cliffs as early as the 1550's and sent by boat from Port Eynon and other bays to north Devon. The limestone was burnt in "a kill-place." [Penrice Estate M.S. 6527. Emery F.V. "West Glamorgan Farming c1580-1620." The National Library of Wales Journal p399]. Once ready the lime was mixed with earth to form a marl and spread on the land. All over Britain where lime was used they built their own kilns. Like malt kilns in Cropredy they were all called "kills" [It was not only lime that went in boats. On the return journey many Devonshire people came over to south Wales to live, bringing with them the sixteenth century agricultural words, many of which are used in connection with the Open Field system still being used in Rhossili. It is one way that explanations for strange words in the Cropredy inventories can be found. Local information from other parishes can be very useful, even at this distance].

A scaffold is a wooden frame for a platform, standing upon either staddle stones to form a rick, or over stalls to form the loft. The boards making the loft, or rick base were not necessarily solid, or fixed down like a permanent floor. In 1578 one scaffold was worth 6s [8]. Eight "bords" valued at 5s -3d may have formed another loft floor. Throughout the inventories scaffolds appear in outbuildings put there by the tenant and therefore must feature in the list of moveable possessions. We saw above John Hunt had them over each of his stock houses (p242). Other husbandmen naturally did the same. Kynd's [31], Vaugham [23], Toms [15], and Truss [33] had all improved their stables by adding these boards to form lofts. Truss's [33] in 1614 had one over the beasts which was worth 10s. Howse [9] had cow standards and nine boards, but we will never know if they formed a loft or not.

"They shaffouldes over the carte howse boardes/ and rafters ...xxxs" This was noted by the neighbours at the late Thomas Smyth of Bourton in 1612. Thomas Wallis of Bourton had a scribe write in his will of 1614: "The hovell which standeth on the stones"[M.S.Wills Pec. 51/1/2 & 54/1/48]. Before 1600 the word "hovell" appears to include the wooden building as well as the lofts. Robins [26] having "v hovells with holme and straw upon them" worth £4. The "hovell" having been built by Robins (as the tenant) and not just the scaffold inside.

The most convenient rickyards were made behind the barn, but also near to the cowpen and stable. Rede's [32] could only be placed to the west of the yard away from the buildings, according to their 1669 terrier [BNC:552], due to the shape of the site (Fig.36.3 p602). Nuberry and Woodrose [8] who farmed the B manor farm, and should have had one of the better laid out farms, had the rickyard behind the barn to the south. This was probably surrounded by elms on at least three sides and especially along the west hedge by the Long Causeway ditch. Rickyards if possible were on land higher than the barn which made it easier to take the corn inside to be threshed. On this site they also had to take into consideration that it must be well above the meadows which were subject to floods. Nuberry's stables had ready access to the hay ricks through a small passage between the barn gable and the stable, but for the cowsheds away in the other yard (Fig.31.3 p512) near the dairy, it was inconveniently far away. They could have reserved one of the barn bays for the milking and feeding, but this would give the dairy maid a difficult journey across the cobbled yard to the courtyard and on into the dairy carrying her full pails. Easy working of the yards and buildings was not altogether possible with piecemeal improvements.

Rickyards were a late development and may have arrived in Cropredy with the need to stack the peas in ricks. Any extra hay produced by the newly enclosed leys could also be made into ricks. Rickyards had to be in a separate area, but near the barns and with more luck than management near the beast stalls. Apparently in some areas ricks were a later nineteenth century invention, but Oxfordshire had them in the sixteenth century.

Peas were nearly always in ricks, and widow Gybbs had "A Rycke of pese" in 1577 which was worth £2 in January, while waiting to be threshed. When Widow Robins [26] in 1577 mentions "i hovell & ij old stackes vs.. a litle skaffold" she too had a rick. Before 1609 Justinian Hunt's barn space became inadequate after leasing extra land so he had corn on his second long hovel's scaffold keeping the crop as safe as possible from rats. The scaffold would be supported by the staddle stones underneath. Because a staddle stone is shaped like a mushroom it prevents the vermin from passing from the stem to the overhanging top stone which in turn was supporting the scaffold frame. Being raised from the ground also helped the air to circulate beneath the rick and prevent the rising damps from spoiling the stack. Pigs and hens would no doubt shelter and forage beneath if not kept out. Cropredy rickyards were nearly all screened from the wind by elm trees and perhaps the barn on one side. The three Church Lane farms [21,23,24] had elm trees along the north boundary next to the Suttons [42] and Fenny [43] copyholds.

Within recent times Sussex made round wheat ricks. They measured twentyone feet in diameter and were made up of twenty cart loads. An oblong oat rick measuring twentyfour feet by fifteen and took twenty loads to build [Bob Copper A Song for Every Season 1956 p148]. A Cropredy [26] wheat rick in 1720 was valued at £26 -13s or 150 bushels [MS. Wills Pec.33/5/25].

One very good reason for building hay ricks was the danger of fire, for if it was inside under the thatched barn without sufficient ventilation, it could overheat and ignite. A damp summer and the impossibility of drying the hay properly before it had to come off the meadow which was required for grazing, meant it was safer in small thatched ricks outside. It had to be thatched, but once protected would not heat up so rapidly and be prone to spoiling mildews as in would in a closed loft. No stock will eat bad hay.

A good cow was not giving much more than a gallon per day. A few, as the seventeenth century progressed, might produce a little more. Their feed of straw, pea haulme and hay for the six or more winter months came from the products of two acres [Thirsk J. ed. Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History in England and Wales. 1500-1906. 1967. Cambridge University Press]. Devotion [3] had straw from 2a of wheat, 6a of barley and 3r of oats. There was also 6r of peas haulm as well as hay and pasturing from 10a of leys and mead (p299). They had no alternative but to make this stretch to feed and bed four cows and two horses.

Houses were built, or adapted, with the products of the cow in mind, so the barn and rickyard to hold their feed was very important. The husbandmen's cheese chambers and dairies are mentioned on (pp 660-4) with a diagram to show the houses where butter and cheese equipment were found, but only those whose inventories were exhibited in Cropredy and have survived (Fig. 40.1 p662].