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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|