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