What I am saying in the following is mere impression from what I have
noticed in passing while doing other research.

I know of several places where there were overseers of the poor not for a
parish,  but for a smaller place.   Indeed according to the technical
definition of what should have become a civil parish when they were
established in the 1690s,  many of these places should have become civil
parishes.   That definition was,  I believe,  'any place in respect of which
a rate can lawfully be levied.'    In parts of the north of England the
parishes were enormous and local administration was carried out by
'townships',  some of which were themselves made up of several villages each
with definable boundaries.

Here in the Midlands,  I know of certain cases where poor law administration
was carried out by smaller places,  which happen to be coterminous with
manors.   I suspect that what happened was that what ever local institutions
were functioning took on responsibility.   Stourbridge is part of the
ancient parish of Oldswinford in Worcestershire.   They were separate manors
in the 16th century but came into common ownership during the 17th,  but
were administering the poor law separately at least until the reforms of the
1830s,  when the scheme for a charity whose property had been used as a
parish workhouse,  specifically provided that the income was in future to be
used both for Oldswinfoird and Stourbridge.   Amblecote was also part of the
same parish but in Staffordshire and was a separate manor.   I think it also
had separate overseers.   The tithe award for Hartlebury (I think) records
property belonging to the overseers of Upper Mitton and those of Waresley,
both of which were separate manors.   Rock contained several manors
including Alton,  Rock,  and part of the manor of Abberley.   There are some
18th century manor rolls for Rock itself,  which do nothing but appoint some
officials.   I seem to recall separate tax lists for several of these
manors.   Separate tax lists imply separate constables who were responsible
for collecting the tax and I think I saw a rating list for Lindon (the part
of Abberley manor that was in Rock),  which implies Lindon administered its
own poor law.

Returning to the original question,  the appointment of fen reeves,  pinders
and such like would originally have been of interest to the lord of a manor,
since they related to the farming of the manor and in the days before
customary rents were overtaken by inflation,  their being properly performed
might have an effect on his income,  quite apart from the profits arising
from waifs and strays.   It is therefore entirely logical that they should
be manorial appointments.   They would be made once a year,  so that
appointment in a court leet would be suitable,  whether the appointment
formally belonged to it or a court baron being held as court leet and court
baron.   I suspect that vestries only took over making some of these
appointments when manorial courts ceased to be held.   However my
information comes mostly form a relatively small part of the country.   I
know that in eastern England it was not uncommon for parishes to be divided
into several manors and for some kind of village meeting to control the
management of open fields etc.   Hoskins shows such to have existed in
Wigston Magna Liecs in his Midland Peasant.

Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: sandie geddes <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 November 2000 00:41
Subject: Re: Parish Officers


> Yes absolutely sure re leet appointments.  Where manor and parish were
> coterminous vestries were superfluous, there certainly wasn't one in my
> first parish of interest.  There was one in my second study parish and
here
> appointments were split between them:  pinders, fen reeves and constables
> were appointed by the leet and churchwardens and overseers by the vestry.
I
> think we have to accept that all parishes were different and operated
> according to local circumstances.  In the first mentioned parish the leet
> made all the appointments including churchwardens  - they also unusually
> appointed five of each officer, one for each of the four townships making
up
> the parish and one extra for the  'High Town' - that was because of the
> immense size of the parish - the largest in Suffolk.   However, this still
> doesn't answer the question of fees for Pinders and Fen Reeves - I should
> very much appreciate your reference on that point.
>
> Sandie Geddes
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Chapman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 15 November 2000 00:06
> Subject: Re: Parish Officers
>
>
> >In message <00d301c04e70$66902400$7568a8c2@remote>, sandie geddes
> ><[log in to unmask]> writes
> >>Thank you for the feed back.   I am fully aware that the generally
> accepted
> >>notion is that offices went with land tenure but, as I was at pains to
> point
> >>out, I am quite certain that in both these parishes this was not the
case,
> >>the appointments were made by the leet.    A fen reeve controlled the
> >>grazing on the fen, the pinder rounded up the the stock and collected
the
> >>fines (the manorial by-laws are quite clear on this point).  I can see
> some
> >>reason for reimbursing the pinder for feed, but not the fen reeve. I
> should
> >>be interested to know your reference for that assertion.
> >
> >Have to confess that Fen Reeves are not exactly common in Berkshire so I
> >have very little idea of what they did. Certainly around here most of
> >the parish jobs were not welcomed and they rotated around those who held
> >land - hence the relationship with land tenure. Are you sure that the
> >appointments were actually made by the Court Leet? - a more usual
> >practice would have been for the nominations to have been made by the
> >vestry, confirmed and enrolled at the Court Leet and then sworn in
> >before a magistrate. This emphasises the subtle distinction between the
> >parish/hundred/county hierarchy and the holding/manor hierarchy.
> >>
> >>Sandie Geddes
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: John M Chapman <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Date: 14 November 2000 16:27
> >>Subject: Re: Parish Officers
> >>
> >>
> >>In message <002e01c04ccc$64706220$0868a8c2@remote>, sandie geddes
> >><[log in to unmask]> writes
> >>>    As far as I am aware, Early Modern parish offices were compulsory
> >>>    and unpaid, although in certain circumstances rewards/expenses
> >>>    could be claimed (constables, for example). But I have often been
> >>>    puzzled by appointments of widows, specifically pinders, to their
> >>>    deceased husband's office, which argued for some sort of financial
> >>>    incentive.
> >>
> >>The offices generally went with land tenure - often a widow would run a
> >>small holding after her husbands decease and before her eldest child
> >>could take over. Quite often they would pay a neighbour or relative to
> >>perform the office but also quite often they did the job themselves
> >>>
> >>>    Researching a different but coterminous parish recently I found the
> >>>    following, which is evidence that this was the case (incidentally
> >>>    in both parishes they were Leet appointments not attached to
> >>>    property):
> >>>
> >>>    Extract from Manorial Court Book April 1711: By-Laws: 'And that
> >>>    no Sheep to be put or fed in the Round Fen upon penalty of 6/8d to
> >>>    be forfeited and paid to the Lord of this Manor for every score of
> >>>    sheep put or fed thereon contrary this order and 4d. for every
> >>>    score to the Common Pinder and Fen-Reeve.'
> >>
> >>This would be for the Hayward (was that the same as Fen-Reeve?) to
> >>enforce. The Pinder was responsible for maintaining the pinfold which
> >>was where the Hayward would put any stray animals - the 4d would be to
> >>pay for feed etc - a bit like a traffic warden ordering a car clamped
> >>and sent to the pound and the pound owner charging rent. The half mark
> >>(6/8) was the fine for the offence.
> >>>
> >>>    I'd be very interested to know if anyone else has come across
> >>>    similar evidence.
> >>>
> >>>    Regards, Sandie
> >>
> >>--
> >>John M Chapman
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >John M Chapman
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%