The Flock

Apart from the legacies of sheep left in wills and the sheep valued in inventories the most useful records are once again Thomas Holloway's Bourton tithe book [c25/4], and some entries in the cottagers book for Cropredy [c25/3]. Each year at Holyrood day the Holloways received a penny a sheep, and half that for every lamb sold. The vicar had kept a record of who had the commons and followed closely the sale of sheep. He was also entitled to every tenth surviving lamb. At shearing time the vicar collected his wool tithe so that from his folios it was possible to calculate the approximate size of the Bourton flock. The vicar adds a little more in his own farm accounts and once again the inventories supply the rest.

For years wool from Oxfordshire had supplied the broad cloths market, but if the market was even slightly depressed then not so many would gamble on leasing extra commons over the following winter. Once each parish kept their commons only for parishioners, but in Bourton there was a tendency in the second decade of the seventeenth century for excess commons on a farm to be set to neighbouring shepherds, even the summer ones. Sometimes some of the enclosed fields around Cropredy, in Prescote, Clattercote and Williamscote, could also be leased, when the owners or tenants reduced their own stocks and sublet the pastures.

As Cropredy had 46.5 yardlands not in manorial tenancy it would be expected that their quota of sixteen summer sheep per yardland would provide a town flock of seven hundred and fortyfour in summer and double that in winter. Woodrose [8] and Coldwell's [50] four and three yardlands allowed summer flocks of sixtyfour and fortyeight, but they did not take it all up themselves. There was also the three extra yardlands set by Coldwell's. Other parishes, mentioned already, had different quotas:

Sheep were kept mainly for their wool. They did not want to create a surplus of lambs when they were limited to a quota and the meat market was not as flourishing as it was to become later. The castrated male lambs, wethers, were grown on to become two year old sherroggs which were kept for their wool. At four years they went for mutton with the older ewes, called barren crones, now that their best wool producing years were over. Ewe lambs were not shorn until the following June and they were then grown on for another year. As two year old ewes they became hoggerells worth about 6s-8d. Before every Holyrood day those hoggerells which were in lamb for the first time would be getting particular attention. The even larger number of sherroggs which were kept primarily for their wool and secondly to manure and firm the fallows, made up the flock with the older in-lamb ewes. In the vicar's close his shepherd would be busy with the feet and checking the condition of all his flock.

It would not be easy in an Open Common Field situation to achieve top quality sheep, but when good shepherds, like Huxeley [36] and Truss [33] could be encouraged to stay with sound housing, then the sheep had a better chance of survival. The flock were hurdled at night acre by acre while they manured and firmed the ground. Would there be enough nights to get round the whole of the fallow field? Or would they be split into several flocks? When the owner could afford to have his sheep on the aftermath of the hay following the cows, or on an early bite on his meadows before they were shut up for hay, then those sheep would benefit and produce three pound fleeces. This of course affected the quality of the wool. Too luxuriant and the quality declined. Too hard and the wool coarsened. Oxfordshire wool had achieved a good price when it used to be sold to the staplers for export, before the clothiers had taken up the market, so they were grazing them on "short commons." Oxfordshire Down sheep were not the only ones to have a short staple. Glamorgan Down sheep produced a short fine wool during the sixteenth century worth twice that of the longer haired Vale wool, but demands were changing.

When the "New-Draperies" came in, the Oxfordshire wool famed for weaving into broad cloth was not as suitable for the new worsteds which took wool from the longer fleeces. This was combed not carded and no fulling was required (p687). Broad cloth had been around for several centuries and was popular as a lightweight warm cloth. An even lighter material was now being produced with a mixture of wools. The sales dictated a change in the husbandmen and shepherd's attitudes and approach to breeds of sheep. The staplers who had once been able to demand a certain quality of wool for the export trade to be woven abroad now had to compete with the clothiers who demanded wool to suit their English cloth, which they then exported. It mattered little to James I who paid his taxes, staplers or clothiers, as both contributed to his income. When in 1617 foreign buyers needed more wool for their own clothiers rather than cloth then the export of wool was stopped. Unfortunately the clothiers did not take up all grades of wool and some areas then had a glut. Some of the staplers, who were often sheep farmers as well, went to the clothiers direct and began to act as middlemen or "broggers" to make a new link between the clothiers and the sheep breeders. The smaller sheep farmers might have to sell out. Sumptuary laws were made to try and promote the wearing of wool amongst the better off and funeral attire had to be in wool. At first little notice was taken of this and the wool market continued to decline.

Thomas Holloway like other parishioners could keep sixteen sheep in summer and thirtytwo in winter for every yardland in Cropredy since 1575 [BNC: Hurst 80 ] (p224). The sheep commons in Cropredy, two hundred years later were apparently of little value. The vicar managed to lease, or purchase sheep commons elsewhere which enabled him to speculate in sheep. The wool market only falling two years before his death in 1619.

On the 4th of May 1615 [f9v] the Holloways had two hundred sheep going off to another parishs' enclosed fields or commons which had become available due to the change in the demands for local wool. The old flocks were decreasing (p264) and commons were being set to those who could breed sheep with longer fleeces for the "new draperies." Holloway's shepherd William set off with two hundred to go to Westcott. How many of the older sheep going there could be expected to lamb and if so why move them so late in pregnancy? Or had none of them been to the ram? Like many Welsh flocks one black sheep was put with them for luck. The older sheep "of all sorts" being anything above a two year old and some when older having no doubt foot problems rendering them unfit for road travel. The lambs going out on the 16th of May were last years ewelambs still not shorn. Sixtyfour were going on the fallow, but they would not be near the tup until the end of November (or November 1616) to lamb the following summer. It looks as though each flock was under the special care of a particular shepherd for the vicar combines his with French who may have been his son-in-law Robin's [26] shepherd. In part payment French was to have a lamb. He ends with the comment that one old sheep was dead. To have only one sheep die shows they had had a disease free year and the shepherds were highly skilled. Another task of a good shepherd was to constantly check each and every sheep in a hot and humid summer when maggots can so easily spoil a fleece and undermine a sheep until they died. Rubbed and torn fleeces would naturally down grade the wool.

Another shepherd was there to take care of the Holloway's Cropredy flock branded on the 16th of May. Traditionally sheep were branded by a complicated numbering system on the ear, though Thomas wrote "yet not eared in my parish" [c25/4 f14]. Did he mean the outsider was not yet branded in Cropredy or Bourton with the owner's mark, rather than the sheep were not given an ear clip? Others made a small brand mark with tar on the fleece. Justinian Hunt [16] left in 1609 "a pitch pan [and] two shipbrands" in the "deahouse." When the sheep were on the fallow did the shepherd get round to branding each husbandman's new born lambs at night as they grazed in the pens? If he failed how would the owners be able to claim their lambs?

Not all the sheep in the vicar's flocks would have come from his own ewes. In April 1616 Holloway purchased sheep from Banbury market as well as from Bourton and Cropredy husbandmen. He wrote up the details in May [c25/2 f11v] giving their prices and came to the astonishing figure of over £45. Thomas appears to buy some from his daughter's mother-in-law the Widow Robins [26] whom he refers to as "my sister," and some from his son-in-law Robins [26]. Tymcokes was another son-in-law who farmed the Holloway's Glebe in Wardington. The other purchases were from the woolwinder and dealer Christopher Cleredge of Great Bourton and his brother Rychard. Another who sold him sheep was a Rychard Toms born perhaps at Cropredy [15] and moved to Wardington. The first one in the list was Thomas French [4] from the Long Causeway, or maybe one of the neighbouring French families. When buying in locally the vicar would have been well informed about the health of the flocks and reputation of their shepherds [c25/2].

Why was Thomas Holloway buying so many in? Had he increased his leased land? There appeared no evidence in the arable section of his farm accounts, slender as they are. The hoggerells coming in so close to the lambing season were surely bought for their wool and not as in-lamb ewes. They were allowed to grow to their full size before going to the ram. In which case these would not lamb until their third season and perhaps the Westcott flock did likewise. He had to purchase them by May day when everyone's flock was calculated against the summer commons they had or could acquire.

Once the flocks went out onto the fallow they were not brought in again until middle or late June when they were washed in the river Cherwell ready for the wool to raise again for shearing. There must have been pools made in the river for washing sheep. Thomas Tusser allowed two days only to elapse between washing and shearing. The wash removed the lanoline which took several days to come up again into the fleece. The grease made the clipping easier and the later practice of leaving the sheep for two weeks was to help the shearer's task, so why did they in the sixteenth century recommend only two days? Could it be the shorter wool which would frizz out again quicker than the long haired variety?

One unpleasant task was dagging the rear end of the sheep to render the wool as clean as possible before they were washed or sold.

On shearing day the husbandman's flock, and perhaps a few neighbour's sheep, were penned ready near the barn. The shearers gather to work standing on the barn doors laid down over the threshing floor. After a sheep was shorn the fleece must be rolled up. Taken to a nearby clean surface they were laid wool side down. The flanks were folded to the centre forming a long shape. This was then rolled from britch to neck very firmly. Holding the fleece with one hand the other drew out a long piece of neck wool and this, still attached, was twisted and wrapped round the fleece and the end tucked in. Each fleece was put in a heap in a clean area ready for weighing before being packed into the wool sacks hung along the inner side of the barn walls.

There are no definite costs for shearing. It could come to 3s per hundred shorn plus the fleece winding a further 1s-8d. In addition all had to be fed. If neighbours went to help each other then shearing may not have been costed and the family taken care of the fleeces, while others caught the sheep on the understanding that they went the rounds that were traditionally attached to their farm group? Only when wool was to be graded and sown into the wool sack by the official "wynder" would a charge be made. It is not clear what the vicar was paying for when on "St Mychael's" day 1615 he gave "to the wollwynder" 8s-6d [c25/2 f10].

Shearing took place from around the 21st of June onwards according to the payments. Mr Coldwell's [50] were not all done at once [c25/3 f5v] "woll wayd my selfe to/ have three pond and foote/ the tythe to me the 21 of/ June was xv ponds.../mr coldwell hath certen/ shepe at Kadvomore as/ yet not shorne - my tyth/ is payd this 4 of august 1617/ and yt was fyve ponds &/ three quarters..." (Note it was taken to the Vicarage [21] by "foote.")

In medieval times the fleeces weighed around 1.4 lbs but had risen to 1.9 by the 1550's [Thirsk 1967]. The Bourtons between 1614 and 1619 still have some at rock bottom. In 1617 when there were sixteen rather than the average twelve owners of sheep the fleeces start at 1.8 lbs and move through 2.0 up to 2.5 the average weight, to 3 lbs. In Cropredy Woodrose's fleeces were 3 lbs and so were Mr Coldwell's. Both had their own enclosed meadows and could feed up their young sheep to a better size, or like the vicar buy stock and improve the size and value of each fleece. A 3 lb fleece was a high quality one. Few flocks had sheep large enough to produce one this size. It was convenient when one weighed the right amount for then the tithe fleece was easier to carry back to the vicarage. Several bulky fleeces could make an awkward burden to carry far. Before any could leave the barn they had to be weighed by the woolwinder.

The long arm of the beam scales would be hung by a rope from a barn beam. This was attached to the middle of the long arm which had a scale hung from each end. The two scales consisted of flat square pieces of wood suspended on four ropes hanging from the arm ends. The whole beam scale must be carefully balanced and was tested by the woolwinders weights at the start of each shearing. A few people in Cropredy had various weights such as an accurate stone weighing 7 or 14 lbs. Lumberd's [14] had a toddstone which weighed 28 lbs. Rychard Watts [34] left in 1602 "the toddstone and other wayghts" 18d. Could he with his interest in education have been the traditional winder and sealer of the wool sack in Cropredy? Just as Christopher Cleredge became in Bourton? The winder also had 4, 2 and 1 lb weights. Once the beam was set the fleeces were weighed on one side, known as the "woll" and the other the "wayghts." The fleeces were written down in todds, which were equal to 28 lbs. If the fleeces were to be sold straight away then the buyer would keep a record of the todds in his book. All husbandmen would make a tally of their todds. Fleeces could not of course be split and when those on the scale went over 28 lbs then a shout would go up indicating how much over they weighed. For example "2 to the wool" and a 2 lb weight was left under the wool scale to add to the next todd. If the fleeces fell short by say a pound then the cry was "1 to the wayghts." All this was added beside each todd in the book.

On the Reverend Holloway's tithe days most townsmen would be expected to come to the vicarage, or church porch, but when it was time to collect tithe fleeces it was better to send one of his men, either Thomas Stephens or William Gardner, to the shearing barn. Holloway may have sent his man out with a horse and paniers when William collected the wool tithe from Jhon Ward of Bourton on the 4th of July 1617, but in 1619 the man could easily walk back for "Thomas my man brought from/ lyttell borton the 9th of Julij of tyth woll xj" pound [c25/4 f24v]. This was small due to the fact that they were now setting the commons out and each tithe had to be bargained for from the subtenants.

At first no way was found to interpret the vicar's method of calculating the wool due to him. Sometimes the vicar wrote down the size of the flock and the amount of wool collected which gave the average size of that farmer's fleece, but not how he had arrived at that amount. There had to be an easy way to work out what was due to the vicar from each shearing. Not all the owners, or shepherds were going to come round to the vicarage to pay their wool dues as Mr Coldwell did, though he had only to walk up Church Street and across the churchyard. The Bourton book was searched without success until it was eventually realised that Thomas Holloway had given the method in the entries for the Woodroses [8] in the Cropredy book [c25/3] which showed it could be worked out.

The first entry [f3] explained how they were collected from Woodrose's barn on the 28th of June 1615 when Holloway received tithe wool from "fower score sheep." "I had six/ fleces wch wayd xx pond &/ taken by my man thomas as/ they lay in the heape." Stephens had reached down and picked up six fleeces which at over 3 lbs each must have made them the best that day, but how did he know how many fleeces to pick up? How was it calculated? Three years later Holloway added more information: "mr wodruff xvj fleces tyth/ one flece wayinge 3 pound" [f7]. Woodrose only had 16 sheep that year and the vicar's tithe was equal to one fleece. Immediately it will be noticed that this was not a tenth of the total wool.

On the 17th of July 1617 the vicar wrote down one way tithe calculations could be made. "Mr nycholus woodrose had/ six todds of woll & xij ponds/ wch by wayght the three pts/ cominge to me is xiij l [lbs] halfe" [c25/3 f6]. The tithe was not a whole tenth for wool, but just three parts of one. That year Woodrose had 180 lbs of wool, according to the man who had weighed them on the scales. He had booked him in at 6 todds and 12 lbs.

To find 3 quarters of his tenth first divide 40 (a tenth x 4) into 180lbs to give 4.5 lbs. Multiply this by 3 (parts) to get 13.5 lbs which is what the man could collect. Obviously suitable fleeces would have to be picked from the heap and weighed to the nearest pound. When both the flock size and the wool total is given in the Bourton tithe book then it can be calculated how often it was the husbandman who had to loose a little wool to the weights, and how often the vicar. Mostly it was less than a pound either way and over the six years remaining of Holloway's folios it evened out.

Sometimes the vicar only gives his portion of the wool, but the husbandman's wool crop was found by reversing the calculations and dividing Holloways portion (For example by dividing Woodrose's 13.5 lbs tithe by 3 parts it gave 4.5 lbs which must then be multiplied by 40 to give Woodrose's wool crop of 180 lbs). When Holloway supplies both pieces of information then naturally the average fleece size can be found. We know Woodrose's was 3 lbs and that this meant he had shorn approximately sixty sheep. He could have had many more, but he had set the rest of his commons to young shepherds. In 1618 Woodrose's shearing only produced sixteen fleeces and the vicar had for his tithe only one [c25/3 f7]. Nicholas had reduced his flock due to a fall in the sale of wool. Mr Coldwell's flock on the other hand appears to increase up to his death in 1619. He had 66 in 1617, about 135 the following year and around 146 his last year. Nicholas Woodrose's wool rose from 264 lbs in 1615 to 372 lbs in 1616, but then dropped to 180 lbs and down to only 48 lbs in 1618. This was the trend in Bourton, though the collapse came a year later than Woodrose's. Bourton had yearly twelve or thirteen parishioners paying tithes except in 1617 when sixteen paid, possibly because the price of sheep dropped and they joined the rising spiral just at its collapse. In the Bourton's tithe book [c25/4] wool was paid from approximately 450 shorn sheep in 1614, 490 in 1615, 480 in 1616, 560 in 1617, 300 in 1618 and 195 in 1619. This was calculated from several entries when both the wool tithe and flock number were given, or from the tithe working out the wool and then from previously better informed years finding their average fleece weight and using it to get an approximate flock size. It is shown as a rough guide only and with the realisation that lambs are not included in the wool clip.

The details given in the Bourton tithe book of their stock would be better appreciated if a town appraisal could be made of their husbandmen's farms and land. Briefly one of the largest farms had fleeces weighing 2.5 lbs in Henry Hall's day, but his son Andrew increases his flock to 140 in 1617 and his fleece size to 3 lbs. His flock then dropped down to only 30 sheep in 1618. Nycholas Plant had 50 sheep in 1615 and unlike many others his began to decrease sooner, 42, 32, 30, until he had only 9 in 1619. One of the only husbandmen increasing his stock was Christopher Cleredge the dealer who may have been caught speculating after a slow market. He started in 1614 with 9 sheep and had a flock of 28 the following year. In 1616 Thomas gave him back his tithe, but recorded 30 for 1617, about 47 in 1618 then down to 39 in 1619. A great deal more needs to be known about each family to discover what other reasons they had for not using up all their sheep commons.

Can we detect the start of the reduction in the numbers of sheep and the fall in the wool clip going to the vicar? What a pity the next, but absent, vicar did not continue making extensive notes. All he mentions is Williamscote farm letting some of their enclosed pastures when the Calcott Chambres were in crisis due to a property purchase. Or with other owners of large flocks had he lost heavily? The various Acts of Parliament keeping back the export of wool to encourage the cloth industry may have coincided with the increase in sales of sheep for mutton. The flock could not be reduced too drastically just because the price of wool had fallen, for they needed the sheep's manure in the preparation of the land for a good corn crop the following year.

Occasionally the vicar accepted money in lieu of wool, such as the 9d a pound he took from John Wyatt. In 1617 he collected 14s and the rest in wool, all from Bourton, which when he sold it brought him in a further £7-14s.

The vicar, or his man, did not always divide and multiply to get the correct tithe instead they applied the second method. Thomas could use his knowledge of the flock's fleece size to work out the wool tithe and he wrote "I allow the fourthe/ parte." This produced the same when as in the first method Holloway took "by wayght the three pts/ cominge to me." The first had used the wool winder's weights to work out the wool due to him. The second method needed only a simple calculation. John Ward had 80 sheep and "the/ tyth 8 [that is in this case a tenth] but I allow the fowrthe/ parte so I had six fleces but/ not wayed" [c25/4 f16v]. Checked by the first method this was correct.

Other arrangements were made with Rychard Atkins of Bourton (p273). Rychard had nintysix sheep from "Mychaelmas" to May day 1617. "I am agreed to take in every 30, 2 tyth, so I must have six fleces" this "Somer" which was not the usual method of waiting until they were shorn, weighing the wool and calculating the tithe, because this tithe was only for the winter.

When the staplers had first become responsible for the collection of wool taxes on exported wool they insisted on a standard and quality so that in 1473 an Act of Parliament actually forbade the wool winder from selling wool. His responsibility was to grade and pack wool into wool sacks, sew them up and state the county of origin. These were for export and the huge wool sacks weighed around three hundred and sixtyfour pounds [7lbs = 1 clove. 4 cloves = 1 todd. 6 todds & half = 1 wey (182 lbs). 2 weys = 1 sack. 240 lbs =1 pack].

No Cropredy clip came to this amount and when we find shepherds who stored their fleeces in the wool sacks they cannot have been for the staplers, but in smaller sacks for the home market. By 1570, and more so in the early seventeenth century, the clothiers required more and more home produced wool and did not want it to leave the country. There was also the needs of the families themselves as they naturally held back the amount essential for their household. Even if his wool clip was small the sacks once sewn up were awkward to handle. The buyers took the wool to their destination by packhorse, but if the wool had not yet been sold, then the sacks had to be carried from the barn to the house. In the long houses the entry door was wide enough for a cow or a wool sack. The cow turned left into the barn, the sack went right into the hall. A dry wooden floor was needed, so up the newel stairs it had to be heaved and pushed into a convenient chamber, though some must surely have taken up a few boards and hoisted it up between the joists, or opened the gable cockloft shutters and hoisted the sacks straight up to the dry floor under the thatch. Robins, Gybbs, Lumberds and Huxeleys each had such a gable window in their two and a half storey houses, which was a good reason to provide a cockloft. A few had wool in the house at the time of their death:

In John Truss's low chamber he had "one bedsteed/ one presse & certaine woolle." His room was next to the hall and must have had boards to raise the wool off the floor. The wool sack would have taken up a considerable portion of the chamber. Truss's furniture would not add up to very much and so the remainder of the £24 came from the value of his wool. This could be roughly calculated at around fourteen todds if at 3 lbs a fleece, or twelve todds if 2.5 lbs from one hundred and thirtysix sheep, but the ewelambs would not have been shorn their first year. It was fortunate that he did not mind the strong smell of sheep wool in his sleeping chamber.

By 1631 Robins [26] had made a wool house in the south end of the house, but when the inventory was taken on the 11th of June there were no fleeces to store as the flock had not been shorn. The hundred sheep plus their wool were worth £45. His mother who had fifteen sheep when her inventory was taken in January 1627 had not sold her wool, so perhaps it was needed for the household. When Gybbs [25] had six todds sold between April 14th and the 9th of May 1629 it brought in £6-18s. At 23s a todd this was the same price as his neighbour's the Robins. The price was lower than 1603, but higher than John Wyatts in 1615 when it fetched 21s a todd (9d a lb). Sheeler's was also valued at 9d a pound in 1620. In spite of the downward trend in flocks the wool price for Oxfordshire seemed at first to be reasonably high, but only as long as the market for broad cloth remained, once that fell the local sheep owners and weavers supporting that market were in trouble.

When sheep were killed at home the wool on the skin was sold as fell wool and packed in separate wool sacks. In February John Truss had "certaine sheepe skins" in the house waiting for a fell monger, or did the whitawers of Round Bottom cure them [57/58] (p474)? Thomas Gybbs [25] also had ten in May 1629.

Sheep fat was used for greasing the carts and as a lubricant at the mill. It was profitable to send some tallow to the chandler who added a flax wick. The housewife might retain a portion to make her own candles. The tallow was very necessary to waterproof the boots.

The shepherd might have waxed his linen smock using beeswax from one of the town's hives to make it waterproof. To prevent their hands from chaffing the shepherd and townsmen used lanolin. First they took some wool from around the ewes udders and neck. This was washed in cold water and placed under some wooden slats in a pot to boil. After skimming off the grease the cold liquid was strained through a linen cloth into a bladder, or pot, which kept the lanolin ready for use. The linen was then used for bandages having being soaked in the healing lanolin.

It was discovered that Cropredy flocks varied in size and not always according to the quota for their yardlands. As flocks were reduced it left commons available for letting. In the inventories between 1570 and 1641 just under a half left sheep. We saw that at Bourton the numbers in a flock varied during the six year period covered by the tithe book, that many gave up their flock before they died and that former shepherds and craftsmen had managed to lease some sheep commons.Two Cropredy labourers (so called) left sheep. Gulliver 4 [41] and Truss [33] senior 27. Tanner [39] the mercer had 6, Wallsall [13] the blacksmith had 18 and Wyatt [31] the farrier had 33. Elderson [38] the carpenter had 7, Watts [27] the weaver 3 and Fendrie [43] 6. There were six widows who hung onto their flocks mostly for legacies, but also for their wool and profit. Elizabeth Gybbs [25] had 13, Johan Robins [26] 7, Johan Toms [15] 20, Alese Howse [28] 36 (her uncle having his flock on the farm as well), Joanne Robins [26] in 1627 had 15 and Em Devotion [3] 16 in 1634. These were the small flocks taken to another farm, in the case of the cottagers, to be shorn. The main flocks still did not add up to the numbers permitted.

Only half the inventories had sheep and out of these the average flock size was for sixteen in summer and thirtytwo in winter which fitted the quota for one yardland. This of course does not take into account the large flocks of over a hundred, or the smaller ones. The majority kept to their quota, or leased it out. The surplus was taken up by active farmers, who except for sudden fevers sweeping the country were not caught with excess sheep. Thirsk found that in the Midlands 55% of peasants had sheep. Most had less than three and rarely more than nine [Thirsk J. ed Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History in England and Wales p665. 1967 Cambridge University Press]. Not all the households in Cropredy kept sheep in their lifetime, others who had kept a small flock, left none when they died in old age, having already given them as legacies to their children, or sold them. Without the tithe book the true percentage for Cropredy cannot now be found.

The larger the flock the less it was related to the size of the farm, especially if a shepherd owned them. Tenants with over two and a half yardlands often had less, because they had set the surplus commons to sons or shepherds. Justinian Hunt owed his father John the wool and profits from ten sheep. John wanted his wife Gillian to have the lambs from the sheep and three todds of wool in 1587. The number of sheepand their value was given in the following cases:

Year	Owner	Site	Number	Month	Value
1614	S.Howse	[9]	160	March	£70
1634	J.Truss	[33]	136	Feby.	£45-6s-8d
1634	R.Hall	[34]	120	March	£40
1587	Jn.Hunt	[16]	116	Oct.*	£19-6s-8d
1631	R.Robins	[26]	100	June 11th	£45
1578	R.Nuberry	[8]	99	May	£36-0s-7d
1603	R.Robins	[26]	96	Sept.*	£25
1629	T.Gybbs	[25]	80	May	£24
1635	E.Lumberd	[14]	73	Oct.
1609	Just.Hunt	[16]	63	April	£24
1606	Jn.Palmer	[1?]	61	May	£23-10s-8d

* Their sheep had been shorn in June. The wool was therefore sold or valued separately.

Robert Robins had nintysix sheep in 1603 worth £25 plus the addition of £6 of wool, giving their real value of £31. These unshorn sheep averaged out at 6s-6d. In 1631 unshorn sheep had risen to 10s-3d each, but may have included the lamb worth between 2s-6d and 3s. Devotion's sheep in 1631 were less than 3s-6d each. It naturally depended on the age, size and quality of the sheep and fleece. The two starred totals in the table above were for sheep shorn the previous June. Those taken before the middle of June included the wool.

The movement of sheep followed a yearly pattern. At the beginning of May before Holyrood day the flocks were gathered in the home closes to be sorted out ready for lambing and going out onto the fallow.

At Midsummer Thomas Holloway was busy we saw collecting in wool. At Lammas, the first of August, he sent round for cottagers' cow tithes and noticed where the sheep were grazing. In 1618 he observed that Mr Pallmer [1] had let William Hall his sheep commons for the past four years, and that "he layd them not wth shepe more than from lammas to martelmas but sold them at that tyme." The vicar only received 4s for four years on the 18th of May but adds "this yere 1618 he is at cominge/ home of shepe to pay me after/ lamas day"[c25/3 f7v]. Sometimes at Holyrood day the vicar deferred payment until Lammas day. "I was to have/ a tyth lambe of george/ gardener in anno 1618/ and having this yere ten/ lambs he kepeth my lambs/ untyll lamas that borton/ shepe come home and then/ I am to chuse the best/ lambs he hath in discharge/ of both the lambs for/ thes 2 yeres past" [c25/2 f23]. Others were also to "accompt for at Lamas." Where were the sheep for the three months from Lammas to Martinmas? In other parishes the sheep went out onto the meadows for the aftermath and this must have happened at Cropredy.

Holloway's next busy sheep day was observing on Saint Martinmas day how many sheep were going out on the commons for the winter grazing and Holloway would expect a tithe from the sheep sold from the Cropredy flocks. His own shepherd was busy preparing Thomas's flock. Several older and barren sheep were to be sold off for mutton and if the vicar was doing that then so were several others in the parish. In his farm accounts he made the following entry in November 1615 [c25/2 f9v]:

Thomas was still taking up many more commons than the land gave him. From whom was he leasing more? He had sent sixtynine ewes out and sixtysix lambs, some of which must have been born the previous year. He still had twenty lambs left so some of the ewes were also sold. Unless the flock back from Fawks common were sold off? The vicar continues:

Sheep coming off the meadows at the beginning of November, where they had been since Lammas time could now move to fallow land at Martinmas, the 11th of November. Because the rams only entered the flock on the 27th of November it meant lambing began at Holyrood time. Two rams might just be alright, but why branded to Robert Robins, husband of his daughter Anne, unless he was still taking charge of the vicar's Cropredy flock? Could this flock be part of his daughter's dowry? Robins were able to lease about two and a half yardlands and needed to employ their own shepherd, two male servants and three maids for the joint household. There were a hundred sheep for Robins' shepherd to look after. The quality of the wool depended on his ability. Sheep feeding had to be regulated to suit the type of sheep and the time of year in their breeding cycle. This not only affected the lambs, but also the condition of the ewe's fleece. Caring for the flock under the Open Common Field system grazing was an art in itself and often took up twentyfour hours during lambing, even with a boy to help.

Some sheep were apparently pastured on the Astmore [Astmead] (p213) for the vicar received "of Rychard Toms/ for 43 shepe pastured in/ astmore from saynt Thomas/ day 1616 unto Mathias day then followinge -ijs-vjd/ *But I used to take a penny/ a shepe in my love I take/ not so much of him" [c25/3 f5v].

Thomas Holloway had to go up to Bourton and he wrote that George Gorstelow had acted as his witness. George and his mother-in-law, Widow Townsend, had set to Thomas Moules, a shepherd from Wroxton, some commons from Martinmas 1615 to the following March. Holloway wrote that they had been in "my parish" for sixteen weeks up to the 3rd of March and he therefore owed 72 pence for old sheep plus thirty others and a penny each for other ewes and a halfpenny for hoggerells. Altogether Moules paid him 8s with George Gorstelow present and no doubt the vicar then witnessed the payment of rent to George. The Gorstelow's of Bourton had more land for his own wool clip reached 120 pounds the previous year and 150 in 1616, but then dropped to 50 in 1617.

The Open Common Field was having to adapt to the state of the wool market. Not all landlords gave the farmer permission to sublet commons, but freeholders at Bourton and the B manor farm [8] at Cropredy had allowed younger sons and shepherds to take up vacant ones. Shepherds specialising in just sheep were perhaps better able than a busy husbandman to make them pay by improving the quality of the flock and growing what the clothiers wanted.

While Holloway was busy calculating the previous year's lambs he was collecting in tithes from the winter commons. Over the winter a few of the shepherds who had insufficient land of their own had apparently taken on surplus commons and one of these was the smallholder John Truss [33](p413). He leased commons just as young Edward Gybbs did who still lived at home [25], while John Wyatt in Bourton took up what he could. Woodroses with their four yardlands let out commons on a regular basis as their flock was small. For the winter of 1613 they leased a hundred commons to John Wyatt. From Martinmas 1616 to Holyrood day 1617 Edward Gybbs [25] had thirtytwo winter hoggrell's commons from Woodroses and owed the vicar two florins tithe and so 4s was paid on the last day of April. In 1618 Woodrose again let to John Truss eighty commons for the winter and Thomas Holloway wrote "he had lyvinge 54. I/recd of him the xjth/ of februarey for that/ he had 50 comons of / wam toms I had but" 3s 4d [c25/3 f1, 6 & 7v].

Just occasionally Thomas waved part of a sheep tithe "I gave him [John ] in my love vj back" [c25/4 f19]. John Ward in 1617 had sold sixty sheep and paid the vicar 5s. Why did the vicar need to give him back sixpence when he paid the correct amount?

Some winters took their toll so that the tithe was severely reduced, but at what cost to the poor owner? In 1614 several sheep died at Bourton. Thomas Cherry kept nine lambs and sold fourteen "the rest deadd." Thomas Gudden on his three quarter yardland "had 26 sheep/ he lade his comons But all dyed/ 3 excepted wch he sold" even so the vicar still collected a 3d tithe from him, but took nothing for his cows. The next year when Thomas Cherry had apparently been resowing the fields with grass he had not been able to stock them. This was one of the only mentions of the reseeding of a pasture (although Gudden had "lade" his). Bourton was an Open Common Field system, but there were already several enclosures to the west of the Broadway. Perhaps that was where Thomas Cherry was expected to have sheep the following year: "shepe next [year when] all fylles new layd" [c25/4 f6]. There were other places where they could lease good enclosed pasture from Michaelmas to May day. In 1616 several Bourton farmers leased Calcott Chambre's enclosed land in Williamscote and Thomas Cherry took the chance to have ten couples grazing there [c25/7 f25v].

Holloway made a note on a separate folio now attached to the 1613 Easter oblations book [c25/7]: "The accompts for such tythes/ as I am to receive owte of/ the new close at willscott from/ mychaell 1616 untyll maij/ day 1617" [f25v].

This was followed by seventyfive sheep couples (ewe and lamb) who had grazed the enclosed field for an unspecified number of weeks. These belonged to Wam Baker, Thomas Gubben, Wam Plant, Thomas Cherry, all husbandmen and Robert Mansell, miller, from Bourton. The note went on to name twentyone sheep couples who had been there for a month owned by Edward Shepeherd, Thomas Blackwell, Rychard Tymes and Jhon Hall and Nycholas Plant's eight "barren shepe a fortnyght/ Jho qryry vx bar[ren] shepe a moneth/ Jhon lovell 6 bar. for a weeke/ Rych atkins 8 coples a fortnight." Would the beasts which followed from November to the 25th of March have been with the sheep? These were given as Mansell's eight, Baker's five beasts, a mare and a colt and Gubben's four beasts and sheep. Holloway finished the paragraph with "In conclusion I have/ vallwed my tythes unto/ them in love for that wynter/ tyth but xs" [c25/7 f25v].

Not all sheep stayed in one place for the whole winter letting, it was healthier to move them, once they were in lamb to another cleaner pasture. In 1616 some of the Little Bourton commons were let to Hanwell and Shotteswell shepherds. "Jhon Rundele a shepeherd/ wyntered in borton fels [fields]/...76 shepe whereof/ he had xj lambs before going forth of the fold wch was/ the 10th of march." Jho Bowers had "seven/ score shepe, ewes /60, & he had them into shottewell folde aboute/ shrove twesday" [c25/4 f13].

The entries for John Wyatt's give some idea of the amounts he paid to the vicar for all the sheep tithes and although John underpays by 6s-8d the payment of 22s still seems a large contribution. If this was just a tenth of his earnings before rent and outgoings then it would appear a large slice of his possible £14. Thomas Holloway as vicar tried to collect in all his dues and when he sold some of his tithe lambs Thomas records sales of around 2s-6d each and even 3s in 1615. These had grazed at the tithe payers expense throughout the year, but why were they not given up soon after they were weaned rather than the following year? Could they have weaned them by August?

John Wyatt in 1615 had eighty commons belonging to Henry Hall and twenty off Atkins, both from Great Bourton. At least thirty of his lambs survive and the three he had to part with fetched 7s. As the summer quota of sheep was half that of the winter John first sold twentyone and owed the vicar a penny each paying 1s-9d. He then sold another twenty off Atkins land and paid 1s-8d to the vicarage. John still owed the vicar for the four score on Henry Hall's commons, but the entry states they were not paid for. After shearing his flock of around eightyfive he produced 210 lbs of wool (nearly 2.5 a fleece) which gave a tithe of 15.75 lbs in six fleeces to the vicar or else their value in money. This was owed on Mid -summer's day, but perhaps John had not sold it for he delays payment of 11s-6d until the 21st of August by then at a lower price per todd. Two years later [c25/4 f16v] Holloway writes "Jhon Wyatt was wth/ me one mydsomer day/ & sayth he had but seven/ shepe all wynter the/ tyth to be pyd xijd." Was this Thomas Wyatt's [31] son John learning to farm while apprenticed as a farrier? If so he had already received quite a lengthy school education and was very knowledgeable about horses (p150).

Over the winter sheep would need feeding especially in the snow. Some hay was made with the flock in mind and several inventories mention sheep racks. Truss had eight sheep racks as well as old hurdles. Hunts in 1587 had "shipprackes", and a score of new hurdles worth £1. Only French's [4] had a sheep house in Cropredy, and they had six sheep racks and other implements worth 10s in 1617. Up the road at Nuberrys [8] in 1578 there was a hovel, sheep racks and two roles valued at £1-5s.

From Bourton's lamb tithes we know that they had the following number of lambs still in the town each May, though they vary enormously from year to year. In 1614 they had 210 thereby owing the vicar 21 lambs. 280 in 1615, 150 in 1616, 550 in 1617, 210 in 1618 and in 1619 just 160 lambs. Over these six years the vicar received 156 lambs, or money in lieu. When there were a few lambs over then they paid "ods."

In 1616 "andrew hall 30 lambs/ solde---ixs/" The vicar had received three lambs and sold them for 3s each which was a good price. "christopher clerydge solde/ him [Hall] 20 ewes 20 lambs/ wch lumbs christopher clerydge/ is to pay for/" The dealer had sold Andrew Hall these lambs and he did pay the vicar two lambs [c25/4 f10]. Andrew took over his father Henry's farm. In 1617 "andrew hall 76 lambs/ tythe 7 lumbs sold/ Jhon Robins his sheperd/ ten lambs one tythe/ sold & pyd in all ---xixs." Together they gave the vicar 19s instead of the lambs [c25/4 f15]. These transactions the vicar wrote down with the money or lambs he received and those he sold off. He also made a note of the penny due per sheep for all those the husbandmen had sold. In c25/4 f15 there is a memorandum to remind him of a transaction:

"Christopher clerydge wyndere/ 53 shepe ewes sold wth lumbs/ 9 & 12 weather shepe/ lumbs more xxj 3 tythe sold/ for---vijs vjd./ for the shepe sold---xxjd/ wherof I gave to him in/ my love ---xiijd." There are very few references to male castrated lambs. The "weathers" if not sent off young for the meat market went on to be called sherroggs grown for their wool.

Many shepherds died more prosperous than the husbandmen of their day. Truss, a bachelor, had one of the largest flocks in Cropredy valued at 6s-8d each. He lived down Creampot at [33] next to his good neighbour Hall. Could this shepherd have tended both their flocks? Banbury shepherds did not leave large flocks of their own and had not been as fortunate as those who died in Cropredy and Bourton between 1570 and 1640. We have seen how young shepherds could winter their flocks and live in good houses as Huxeley [36] and Truss [33] did (ch.26). Coldwell [50] called his shepherds by their names, or employed them as man servants. They usually stayed on for several years. Few called their man a shepherd so perhaps shepherding at this stage was part of their overall training and only a few like Solomon Howse [9], Truss and Huxeley had become professional shepherds. When Sheeler was dying he did however consider himself a shepherd and he worked for Arthur Coldwell [50]. Sheeler left thirteen sheep worth £6. John Clyfton [7] and his wife Abishag who had the B. manor [8] cottage worked on that farm for most of their married lives and that must surely show how good they were. His skills would have been essential to maintain the flock to a fleece weight of 3 lbs and yet by 1618 the flock had fallen to sixteen due to the wool crisis.

Those who mention their shepherd in the Easter lists were: Lumberd [14] Hunt [16], Gybbs [25] and Robins [26], but not on every year, sometimes the man's name was given, or just man servant. If a son was at that stage he would train under a competent shepherd and then take over the task as Solomon Howse had done. The vicar tells us that Robert Robins had a shepherd called French and William Tustain who had married Truss's sister and come to live in their household had spent 1613 and 1614 working at Robins, possibly as a shepherd.

Edward Shepherd of Little Bourton, another shepherd, had left twentynine sheep and ten lambs in August 1627 worth £10. He had "shippicks" and a "stafehocke." Altogether his estate was over £50. In his will he left to Thomas Taylor "in consideracon of the sum of fowerteene shillings which I owe him, two of my best lambes which I have at Ladbrooke to be delivered him at Lady day next." All his Bourton godchildren received "one sheepe a peice." So although the Bourton commons were often let, here was a shepherd with sheep at Ladbrooke where the vicar lived. Was there any connection? Thomas Taylor, shepherd, and his wife worked for widow Smyth of Bourton.

Solomon Howse [9] had a pitch pan, brand and trevice as well as nine boards, hay and sheep racks. Palmer in 1606 left a pitch pan and brand, the signs of a shepherd. Truss [33] was another with a pitch pan which looks as though these three used hot tar and a brand to identify their sheep rather than ear snips. Scythes, and rakes for hay making as well as pitch forks to load the racks and make the ricks were as essential as their sheep hook, payring knife and sheep shears. If there were no local hurdle makers then shepherds might have to make their own. If tools were not made by the shepherd himself, then they would be locally produced. A shepherd had a leather satchel called a scrip to carry their equipment around, but a horse and cart would have to be borrowed to get in the hay. None of the shepherds sheep dogs are given, in fact the impression would be of a dogless town which could not be true. It could be that there were too many dogs and they had no value? Perhaps dog owners were not asked to pay a tithe after every tenth puppy, because the puppy was not an asset to the vicar like lambs and calves, but would be an embarrassment. This may be one of the reasons why they have so few records. On the other hand the shepherd's dogs like the oxen were working animals and possibly exempt from paying a tithe?