HATFIELD in
HISTORY Derek Holland
YORKSHIRE SOUTH DISTRICT
Published by the
Yorkshire South DISTRICT
Chantry Buildings, 20 Corporation Street, Rotherham S60 1NG
Š WEA First published in 1970 Second Edition, 2001
CONTENTS List of Plates
PAGE 4
List of Figures
5
Preface
6
Acknowledgements
8
Local History Class Members
9
1 Introduction
10
2 Hatfield and its Buildings
12
(a) The Village Plan
12
(b) The Parish Church
12
(c) Houses
15
3 Population Trends, 1560-1800
21
4 Agricultural Changes
24
(a) The Dutch Drainage
24
(b) The Open Fields and Enclosure
27
(c) Later Drainage and Warping
35
5 Hatfield and its People in the Early 19th Century 39 6 The Growth of Hatfield in the 20th Century
45
Appendix
49
Notes on Plates
52
Plates
54
Figures
69
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
LIST OF PLATES (Pages 54 - 68) 1
Farmhouse and barn, High Street, Hatfield
2
A High Street farmyard viewed from the Back Lane
3
Back Lane, Hatfield, from the east
4
Aerial view of Hatfield
5
St. Lawrence’s Church, Hatfield
6
North aisle, St. Lawrence’s Church, from the east
7
Bow House, Ash Hill, Hatfield
8
Farmhouse, Hatfield Woodhouse
9
The Bridge, Stainforth
10
The Canalside, Stainforth
11
Wyndthorpe Hall, Dunsville
12
The Pinfold, Hatfield Woodhouse
13
Thackray House, Hatfield
14
The Court House, Hatfield
15 & 16 Hatfield House barn & stables
4
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
LIST OF FIGURES (Pages 69 - 74) 1
Hatfield Church (Plan)
2
Graph Showing Population Trends in Hatfield (i) 1567-1680; (ii) 1680-1800
3
The Dutch Drainage (Map)
4
Open Fields, Commons and Wastes of Hatfield in 1811 (Map)
5
Drains (Sketch Map)
6
Occupational Structure of Hatfield Parish 1837-68
5
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PREFACE TO NEW EDITION Hatfield in History was one of the first fruits of research into Local History by a WEA group in South Yorkshire. It was not the first, for that honour went to A Further History of Penistone, produced by John Addy and his Penistone class in 1964. The work at Hatfield was directly inspired by that which John Addy was doing with his group in Penistone. Discovery learning through project work was a novel concept in adult education in the early 1960s, perhaps ultimately inspired by some of the exciting approaches which took shape in primary education. The idea of presenting groups of adults with bundles of documents and encouraging them to study these alongside the reading of specialist books led to a series of WEA publications in South Yorkshire. Hatfield in History has stood the test of time well. It was never intended to be a complete history of the village. It was an exploration of several themes, which seemed important in the history of the village and parish. It was to be the sort of groundwork which later writers might find useful as a compendium of village history. As such, and more, it was perhaps more successful than we dared hope at the time. It has stood the test of nearly thirty years of use. No group could ask for more, and this alone justifies reprinting. It is hardly surprising that the picture has been amplified or modified in some ways since 1970. We know more about the Manor House site, after the investigations carried out in the early 1980s by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service. Their discovery of a Norman first-floor hall, embedded in later work, takes the story of this site and its buildings back to the late 12th century.1 However, the claim that this building was the royal palace is unproven. The possibility should be born in mind that this Norman building was a steward's house, rather than a royal residence. It seems more like a small manor house than the royal palace. In this sense, Hatfield in History's claim still stands: “Nothing now remains visible of the Saxon and medieval royal palaces, nor even the timber-framed building which Leland described in the early sixteenth century.� Ryder and Birch were perhaps misguided in their forthright criticism of this statement. 6
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Agricultural history had a prominent part in Hatfield in History, though it presented only a brief bird's-eye-view of the subject. Its data on open fields and commons, enclosure, and drainage was unusual for a parish history in this region at that time. It was certainly a more earthy view of local history than many parish historians were then taking. In more recent years Dan Byford has been researching the agricultural history of Hatfield, and his work is throwing important new light on this aspect of local history. His recent article on open-field farming is one of the first fruits of this scholarly harvest.2 Our work also scrutinised explorations in the parish registers, which threw important new light on local population history from the 16th to the 19th centuries. It examined history on the ground, as well as that recorded in books and documents. The visual evidence of the church, the village houses and other buildings, the lanes and fields were all made to play a part in the understanding of local history. In summary, then, Hatfield in History was pioneering. It set the agenda for a number of topics in the local history of this area, and it certainly widened people's perspectives of what their local history could embrace. As a whole, and in its parts, it is still useful and interesting. Derek Holland Editor 1 P. Ryder & J. Birch, 'Hatfield Manor House, South Yorkshire', in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 60 (1988). 2 D. Byford, ‘Open-Field Farming in Fishlake and Hatfield: The Evidence of the Court Books, 1582-1808’, in B. Elliot (ed), Aspects of Doncaster (Wharncliffe Publishing, Barnsley, 1997), pp. 87-110.
7
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The former Vicar of Hatfield, the late Rev. Canon Ted Greathead BA, showed great kindness in allowing us to study the parish records in his care and to make a survey of St Lawrence’s parish church. The present Vicar of Hatfield, the Rev. Canon John Sweed BA, has shown equal kindness in allowing us to visit and study the parish church on numerous occasions, and has himself joined in many on-site discussions over the years. The help and support of local clergy is crucially important in this kind of project, and in Hatfield we have been doubly fortunate in the kindness of its incumbents. We are grateful to those people in the village who were kind enough to show members of the group round the exteriors and interiors of their old houses. Margaret Prentice ARPS of Doncaster took a series of photographs to illustrate the 1970 book. Reasons of cost led to the publication of the text without photographs. Fortunately, we have been able to include these in the new edition of Hatfield in History. We thank her for the following plates: 1-3, 5-8, and 11-12. The late Canon Ted Greathead kindly supplied plate 4, whilst Miriam Lawrence kindly made available plates 9-10. Back in 1970, Mrs Pamela Jackson typed the original draft of the book, whilst Mrs Irene Gray produced the final text of the publication. The kindness of David Pittaway and Paul Satthertwaite at the WEA’s District Office in Rotherham who have made possible the computerprinting of the text of the new edition. Enid Holland kindly helped with the editorial tasks to bring the new edition to publication. It remains to thank two District Secretaries of WEA Yorkshire District (South). Ray Fisher recognised the importance of publishing research by WEA Local History classes back in the late 1960s. He made resources available, and he stuck with the publication programme throughout his distinguished career as District Secretary. We all owe him a great deal. To Ted Hartley, the current District Secretary, we owe the kind suggestion that we should reprint some of the early Local History publications, now no longer available in print. We thank him for his interest and for making available the resources to achieve this new programme of publications. 8
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
MEMBERS OF HATFIELD LOCAL HISTORY CLASS Tutor: Derek Holland, BA 1964-65 Session
1965-66 Session
Miss C. F. Bayes
Mrs W. F. Armes
Mr D. Brooks
Miss C. F. Bayes
Mr K. S. Carlin
Mrs J. Bentley
Mr F. Colley
Mrs B. Bowen
Mr C. Gregory
Mrs C. Bragg
Mrs J. Hatch
Mr D. Brooks
Mr A. Lawrence
Mrs G. A. Brown
Mr A. N. Mennie
Mrs J. Hatch
Dr J. G. Rider
Mr A. Lawrence
Mrs A. Rider
Mrs M. E. Lawrence
Mr W. R. Senior
Mrs M. Walmsley
9
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
1. INTRODUCTION Hatfield village lies on a small gravel island in the middle of what was once an area covered mostly by peat moors and bogs. The very name ‘Hatfield’ means a tract of open uncultivated land - so much did the open character of the countryside strike an impression upon the early Anglian settlers. So far, very little evidence has been accumulated regarding this area in early times. It seems probable that after natural inundation in late Neolithic times, the area was avoided by all settlers until the Dark Ages. The main Roman road from south to north makes a definite detour to the west around this marshy and inhospitable area. It is still possible, however, that some day archaeologists will find evidence of small-scale settlement on patches of gravel above the generally watery levels.
Hatfield’s earliest claim to fame was the Battle of Hatfield, fought in the neighbourhood in 633 AD. The disputed borderlands between the rival kingdoms of Northumbria and Mercia ran through the southern part of Yorkshire, and in the 7th century several bloody battles were fought in the area. These included the battles of the Idle, the Trent, and the Winwaed. All were fought near points where rivers were crossed by Roman roads - probably near Bawtry, Littleborough, and Wentbridge. In 633 Penda’s Mercian forces routed Edwin’s Northumbrians, and King Edwin was killed. The first documentary reference to settlement is that provided by Domesday Book of 1086. At the time of this great survey, Hatfield together with the nearby places of Stainforth, Bramwith, Fishlake, Thorne, and Tudworth - formed part of the large estate of William de Warenne of Conisbrough Castle. Hatfield was described as follows: In HEDFELD [there are] 12 sochmen with 6 ploughs. A church [is] there, and a priest. Pasturable woodland 6 furlongs in length and 6 in breadth.
The twelve sochmen and one priest probably represented a total population of some 61 men, women and children. In Hatfield’s
10
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y neighbours the probable total populations in 1086 were as follows: Stainforth 35, Bramwith 35, Tudworth 70, Thorne 80 and Fishlake 120.
The church at Hatfield was the first to be built in this locality - with parochial rights over the present parishes of Hatfield, Thorne and Fishlake. Even when separate churches were built at Thorne and Fishlake, the mother-church at Hatfield still exercised full parochial rights over them for some considerable time, and Stainforth remained part of Hatfield parish right down to modern times.
All this is surely a measure of Hatfield’s importance in relation to its neighbours. Moreover, mere totals of population are not necessarily a true indication of the wealth of a community. At Hatfield in 1086 there was sufficient arable land to occupy 6 ploughs, but in Hatfield’s neighbours there seems to have been considerably less arable land enough for 4 ploughs at Fishlake, Thorne and Stainforth, for 3 at Tudworth and 1 at Bramwith. Furthermore, Hatfield had more pasturable woodland than any of its neighbours. Certainly at Fishlake (and perhaps also at Thorne and Tudworth) it is possible to see the origins of a situation in which the pressure of rising population upon available land would act as the major incentive to colonization of waste land in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The medieval history of these marshlands would well repay the research of local students. Without further research our knowledge of the early history of this part of Yorkshire will remain imperfect. Many of the source materials are already in print, and many more are available in manuscript form.
11
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
2. HATFIELD AND ITS BUILDINGS a) The Village Plan The old core of Hatfield is a ‘street village’, with farmhouses along both sides of the street, some with their axes parallel to the street and a few with their gables to the street (Plate 1). At the rear are usually farm buildings and outhouses, all the buildings (including the house itself) standing on a plot of land known as a toft (Plate 2). Behind all the tofts and parallel to the village street ran a back-lane, and this still exists on the south side of the village, running eastwards from the side of the Blue Bell Hotel (Plate 3). On the north side of the village the back-lane no longer exists as such, but the line of it can be clearly traced by the hedge boundaries. These back-lanes gave access to the farmyards for sheep and cattle, thus avoiding the need to lead them through the village street. Beyond the back-lanes and at right angles to them, running as far as the beginning of the open fields, were the crofts, long rectangular plots of enclosed land (usually pasture) attached to each farmstead. No longer do all of these exist, but a glance at the map or a view from the top of the church tower will reveal hedge boundaries which represent what does remain of these crofts. In addition to this main part of the street village, there was another group of farmhouses in the area of Hawthorn House and the Co-operative Stores, and these had a back-lane running between tofts and crofts on the west side (Plate 4). b) The Parish Church (Plate 5) The average English village church is probably one which exhibits several styles, materials, and methods of construction, and Hatfield church is no exception. There are four main phases in the development of the building: the Norman core, the 13th century expansion (when north and south aisles were added), the contribution of the early 14th century generation before the Black Death, and the considerable rebuilding and modification which took place circa 1480-1520 (Figure 1). 12
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y The earliest parts of the building are the west doorway and wall, the north aisle west window, and the lower courses of the south aisle wall, between the south porch and the south transept. These are Norman, and the west doorway probably dates from circa 1120-30. This doorway was restored by the Victorians, presumably because some of the stonework had decayed, but enough of the original remains for us to assess its date. The masonry surrounding this doorway and the lower part of the south wall consist of small boulders found locally, and the same material was used in parts of Thorne church. The Norman church may have been as wide as the present church, with two aisles. Just how long this Norman building was we cannot tell, for there is no trace of Norman work beyond the nave. The Norman chancel must have been destroyed in the course of the 14th and 15th century rebuildings. The five-bay arcades of the church, between nave and aisles, were built in the 13th century, when double-chamfered pointed arches were erected on circular piers. The north aisle wall also appears to have been built in the 13th century. In the early 14th century, a new central tower was planned and partly built. The four crossing-arches were completed, together with several courses of masonry above, which took the tower up to around the roof-level of the nave. It is possible that a whole new east end was also planned at this time. However, the Black Death intervened, and nothing east of the central tower was built. The central tower remained to be completed in the post-1480 building campaign. The early 14th century had also seen the rebuilding of a large part of the south aisle south wall, when two new windows were inserted.
Hatfield church was substantially altered and partially rebuilt circa 1480-1500. The material used was magnesian limestone, from the belt running north-south to the west of Doncaster. It would be transported along the river Don to Stainforth, and then overland to Hatfield. This early Tudor rebuilding involved the erection of the upper part of the central tower. It saw the heightening of the nave, with its new clerestory of three-light windows. In connection with this work, the transverse arches in the nave north aisle - from the north wall to each pier of the arcade - must surely be seen as a structural security measure (Plate 6). The large buttresses on the outside of the north wall, at these same 13
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y points, were for the same purpose. Why was the downthrust of the new clerestory so much of a problem on the north side, but not on the south? Perhaps some minor difference in surface geology would provide the answer, with softer ground on the north.
Slightly later than the rebuilding of circa 1480-1500 are the north and south chapels. They fill in the north-east and south-east angles of what would otherwise have been a purely cruciform plan. Proof that they were added to the rebuilt church is to be found in the traces of broken masonry in the north and south walls of the chancel and in the east walls of the north and south transepts. There is also broken masonry where the north chapel adjoins the north transept on the exterior. The two chapels probably date from circa 1500-20. Hunter, writing in the early 19th century, had his own theory about the source of wealth for rebuilding the church.
On the stonework of the tower is a shield of arms: four fusils in pale, with a unicorn’s head for the crest. These are the arms and crest of Sir Edward Savage, one of the sons of Sir John Savage, by Catherine his wife, sister to the first Stanley Earl of Derby. The connexion of the Savages with King Henry VII, through the Stanleys and the King’s mother, and the zeal with which they espoused the Lancastrian cause, brought them into great favour with the King, who bestowed upon them many lands and offices. Sir Edward was made keeper of the park of Hatfield, and master of the game. The same arms were used by Thomas Savage, another son of Sir John. He was a churchman, and promoted by Henry VII to the Archbishopric of York. Stowe says of him, that he ‘resided principally at Scrooby for the sake of hunting’. It was probably to one or both of these brothers that the inhabitants of the parish of Hatfield owe their church. 2
Hunter’s explanation of the arms on the tower is of key importance in understanding the source of the early Tudor rebuilding. Rich families often played a part in the rebuilding of English parish churches, and the Savages probably enabled the parishioners of Hatfield to complete their church rebuilding from the central tower eastwards. Whatever other contributions were made by local people towards this work, the wealth of the Savages made the plans become reality. 14
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
REFERENCES 1 As Pevsner points out in his Buildings of the West Riding (Harmondsworth, 1959), p. 255. 2 Cited in J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase (Doncaster, 1882), pp. 127-8.
c) Houses In Hatfield, as in many villages, the church is architecturally the most important building, but along the High Street and at the fringes of the village community are the homes of the village people. During the last hundred years or so Hatfield has altered considerably in both its social structure and the size of its population, but its early nineteenth century characteristics are still visible in these buildings - which fall easily into three sections: the larger houses, the farmhouses and the smaller houses, and the cottages.
Several of the larger houses lie on the sweeping bends of the main road, and the first of these, on approaching Hatfield from Doncaster, is Bow House. This is a three-storied brick building of three bays, with tiled roof, partially-projecting gable chimney stacks, and the smallpaned, bow-fronted, hung-sash windows which gave the house its name. (On the 1854 Ordnance Survey 6” map this house is called, significantly, ‘The Bow Window House’.) It will be seen that the end elevation of Bow House is asymmetrical and that here is an example of a two-storied ‘outshot’ built at the same time as the rest of the house (Plate 7). Ash Hill Lodge is a symmetrical brick-built house of three bays, with hung-sash windows, gable chimneys and a pantiled roof. It is a good example of a ‘double-pile’, which enabled the building of a larger type of house without the technical difficulty of constructing the roof in one large area. The Leylands, brick-built with a cement rendering, is another symmetrical house of three bays, with a hipped roof (slated), casement windows in the lower storey and hung-sash windows in the upper, and with a central chimney-stack. 15
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Thackray House is a symmetrical brick building of two storeys with hung-sash windows, a gabled roof (pantiled), with a central pediment at the front, and a gable chimney stack. At the rear is a wing (somewhat earlier than the rest of the house) with an axial chimney stack, and a side door above which is a ‘Gothick’ fanlight and the date 1782. Hawthorne House, brick-built but now cement rendered, is L-shaped, with five bays, hung-sash windows and a slate roof. Although the external appearance of Hawthorne House is of the early nineteenth century, when it was clearly partly rebuilt, part of the interior is much older. For example, the stone-floored kitchen, one of the parlours and part of the roof structure date from the late seventeenth century, whilst some of the chamfered ceiling beams are still a century earlier.
In the High Street is Pyenest, a two-storied house of five bays with a three-sided bay (also of two storeys) on one gable end, ashlar dressing, gable chimneys and one axial chimney (i.e. a chimney stack placed along the ridge of the roof). It has a fine example, for a village house, of a pedimented pillared doorway. The present Vicarage was built around 1870. It is built of a light grey brick and the original cost was about £450. There were later extensions added to the back of the house and it is said that these additions cost nearly as much as the original building.
All these larger houses appear to have been rebuilt in the years between circa 1780 and circa 1850. Their generous size, numerous large windows and chimney-stacks, and fine doorways are clear indications that they were probably built for professional people. For example, Tomlinson quotes the following inscription from the marble monument in Hatfield Church: Sacred to the memory of Joseph Thackray of Hatfield (civil engineer), who died Jany 22nd 1828, aged 56 years. In his public character his attainments and integrity were known and appreciated. As a tribute to the deeply cherished virtues of his domestic life this tablet is erected.1
This Joseph Thackray is undoubtedly the man who had built (or rebuilt) the house which is now known as Thackray House, so that here we can correlate a local engineer and the house in which he lived 16
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y (see Plate 13). Furthermore, Baines’s commercial directory of 1822 and White’s of 1837 list the principal inhabitants of Hatfield at that time and from them we can see that the kind of people living in these larger houses were gentlemen, professional people and retired officers of the armed forces.2
The Manor House itself really calls for separate treatment: it is the largest house in the village and its inhabitants originally occupied a special place in the community’s social and economic structure. Nothing now remains visible of the Saxon and medieval royal palaces, nor even of the timber-framed building which Leland described in the early sixteenth century: The Logge or Manor Place is but meanely builded of tymber.3 It would appear that the present L-shaped building was rebuilt in the late seventeenth century, and that further renovations were carried out in the early eighteenth century. Among the Temple Newsam papers are a number of manuscripts relating to repairing the Manor House at Hatfield 4 as follows, for example: 3rd February 1712 [actually 1713]
A Bill of Repayrs for Merterialls & Work Done in Bishop Hatfield for the Honnerable Rich Ingram Esqre. By me Henry Lamb Carpt. [Total: £31:14s:0 1/2d.] 9th December 1718
On this date Thomas Moore supplied 8,000 bricks and 9 loads of lime at a total cost of £2:9s:0d. Decem. the 10th 1718
Then reced. of the Rt. Hon. the Lord Irwin by the Hands of Mr. Hopkinson three pounds in full for ten thousand bricks & all accts. etc. agreed by me. his X mark Joseph Jellett The earliest bill of this group for Manor House repairs is dated 1712 and the latest 1727, so that we have fairly reliable terminal dates for the early eighteenth century renovations carried out there. As it stands today, the Manor House gives the impression of being partly a late seventeenth century brick structure, with additional eighteenth century 17
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y rooms added and replacements of earlier windows and doors by those of the eighteenth century. Associated with the Manor House and situated near it is the Court House, where the manorial courts (Court Baron and Court Leet) for the Manor of Hatfield were held.5 The building dates from circa 1800 and is a good example of minor Classical architecture (see Plate 14). It was being used for local property auctions in the 1830s and 1840s.6
These larger houses were either architect-designed or of types taken from published pattern books and erected by local master craftsmen. The smaller houses, particularly farmhouses, and the cottages - in which the bulk of the population lived - are sometimes distant reflections of the styles and constructions embodied in the larger houses, but scaled down to satisfy more modest wealth and needs. The fact that so many of these farmhouses and cottages were rebuilt, or in some cases newly built, in the years circa 1800-1860 is a clear indication of the wealthy rural economy of those times. This is the time when farmers were benefiting from enclosures and better drainage and the beginnings of scientific farming. It was a time when landlords invested some of their new-found wealth in building new farmsteads and cottages.
Perhaps the majority of the farmhouses are those with two rooms up and two rooms down in the main body of the house, with a kitchen and scullery and another bedroom in an ‘outshot’ construction at the rear of this. They are mostly symmetrical, of three bays, with a central door (with the usual fanlight to give light on the staircase which rises from the small square entrance hall behind the door), hung-sash windows (some with small Georgian panes, but the others with large Victorian panes), and either a window or a false window at first floor level above the central door (Plate 8). Often the cottages (and the outshots of farmhouses) have Yorkshire sliding windows in which one half of the window slides horizontally behind a fixed half. These houses have, inevitably, gabled roofs, pantiled up to c. 1850, but thereafter covered with blue Welsh slates which the railways brought within easy reach of many English villages for the first time. These houses are entirely brick-built, the bricks being handmade. 18
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Clay was dug during the winter and allowed to lie so that frost and rain could break it up, after which it was wetted again and trodden into a uniform consistency. The bricks were made in a wooden mould by men working at a sanded table, and were afterwards left to dry for a month on a covered rack before they were fired. The earliest method of brickmaking was to fire the clay in ‘clamps’ which burned at a lower temperature than later kilns and achieved less oxidisation of the combustible matter.7 This is why much old brickwork, such as we see in Hatfield, is of a mottled dark tone. This brickwork contrasts markedly with that of a house built of machine-made bricks fired in a kiln (see, for example, two semi-detached houses, Rycroft and Avondale, in the High Street, which are dated 1882 - one of the latest brick buildings to be built before the present century.)
Perhaps the earliest brick building in the village is the single-storey building with its gable end to the High Street, which is now a barber’s shop. It was probably originally built in the late seventeenth century as a small brick farmhouse. Another late seventeenth century brick building is the two-storied house (now a shop) in the High Street, diagonally opposite the Ingram Arms. (Demolished)
Bricks and tiles seem to have been made in Hatfield from at least the early seventeenth century, for there are references to ‘Brickhill Carr’ and ‘Tylehouse Kilne’ in 1607.8 But brick-making and brickbuilding did not become widespread in the neighbourhood until the late seventeenth century, and the first specific reference to the making of pantiles in the village is also in 1704.9
Before this innovation of brick as a building material, timber-framed buildings with thatched roofs would have been a common sight. Abraham de la Pryme’s lifetime witnessed the housing revolution implicit in the development of local brickmaking and he has an interesting note on the subject in his diary:10 The town itself, though it be but little, yet ‘tis very handsome and neat: ye manner of ye building that it formerly had were all of wood, clay and plaster, but now that way of building is quite left of, for every one now, from ye richest to ye poorest, will not build except with bricks: so that now from about 80 years ago (at which time 19
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y bricks was first seen, used, and made in this parish), they have been wholy used, and now there scarce is one house in ye town that dos not if not wholy, yet for ye most part, consist of that lasting and genteel sort of building; many of which also are built according to the late model with cut brick and covered over with Holland tyle, which gives a brisk and pleasant air to ye town, and tho’ many of the houses be little and despicable without, yet they are neat, well furnished, and most of them ceiled with ye whitest plaster within. The seventeenth century rebuilding destroyed all substantial traces of the timber-framed houses, just as many seventeenth century brick houses were obviously destroyed in the great rebuilding of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries discussed above.
REFERENCES 1 J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase, (Doncaster,1882) p. 133. 2 E. Baines, History, Directory and Gazetteer of the County of York, (2 vols., Leeds, 1822), Vol. 1, p.518. W. White, History Gazetter & Directory of the West Riding of Yorkshire (2 vols., Sheffield, 1837), Vol. 1, p.187 3 L. Toulmin-Smith (ed.), The Itinerary of John Leland, Vol. 1 (London, 1907), p.36. 4 Leeds City Library, Archives Dept., TN/HC/C/11(5). 5 J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase, (Doncaster, 1882). 6 Sheffield City Library - Archives Dept: Baxter Papers (Sale Catalogue colln.) 7 M. W. Barley, The English Farmhouse and Cottage (London, 1961), pp. 206-7. 8 A. H. Smith, Place-Names of the West Riding: Part 1 (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 7-12. 9 Calendar of the Records of the Borough of Doncaster, Vol. IV, p.162. 10 Diary of Abraham De La Pryme (Surtees Society, 1870), p. 114.
20
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
3. POPULATION TRENDS, 1560 - 1800 The parish registers, beginning in the sixteenth century, are the annals of the ordinary folk of the parish, containing details of baptisms, marriages, and burials over the years. Our graphs (Figure 2) of these three variables (with baptisms converted into conceptions) are a summary of population trends in Hatfield parish, and a guide to the lives of the inhabitants over a period of 230 years.1 Taking a long view, marriages were more or less constant throughout the years 1570-1800. The exceptions to this observation occur in 1622-38, when marriages were at a particularly low level. Could it be that the upheavals and uncertainties of these years (when Vermuyden was carrying out his drainage work) actually tended to discourage marriage? The relationship between the number of conceptions and the number of burials is of great interest to us, because this enables us to chart changes in the general level of population. In the late 1560s and throughout the 1570s we find that (with the sole exception of 1579) the number of burials was annually greater than conceptions. Then in the early 1580s conceptions equalled burials, and in 1582 and 1584 conceptions were actually higher. Then between 1584 and 1600 (apart from 1598) conceptions regularly exceeded burials, and from 1601 to 1610 they remained just above, except in 1602 and 1604 when they fell below. In the years 1611-25 conceptions were generally above burials and the gap between them was widening, although both were falling until the latter date. We have already noted the very low level of marriages in the mid1620s. In the late 1620s conceptions and burials moved very closely together, but by 1632 the gap was slightly wider than it had been in 1611-25 and both were rising. The level of conceptions was higher in circa 1640 than it had ever been before - though that of burials was only slightly higher than it had been circa 1620 and was definitely lower than circa 1600. Yet the marriage level remained low until circa 1638. All this seems to indicate an increase in the size of families. 21
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y In the years 1645-52 burials remained low, although they shot up again in 1653 to a level somewhat higher than they had been before - but the setback does not seem to have been great. Then in 1658 burials shot up to over 170, and naturally conceptions were well down in the following year. Again in 1661-2 burials reached a peak, but this was only half as bad as 1658, and in the years 1673-7 and beyond recovery was to be seen. But in comparison with the promise of the 1630s and 1640s, the 1650s, 1660s and early 1670s were a disastrous setback to long-term population growth. In January 1684, the parson noted the keenest and longest frost known to the memory of man in this country, and this seems to be reflected in a rise in burials and a fall in conceptions. We have no data for burials between 1685 and 1701, a period in which conceptions remained more or less constant on the level of the 1660s. The burial trend for the early 1680s had been as high as in the early 1670s. Between 1701 and 1707 conceptions remained stable, whilst burials tended to fall, and then from 1707 to 1725 (with the exception of 1716-19) burials annually exceeded conceptions. The years 172025 were particularly bad - indeed, they were on a par with those circa 1670. Then after a brief respite in 1726-28, burials leapt up to 140 in 1729.2
Then in the 1730s we find a much more healthy situation, with the level of conceptions remaining constant and burials declining - except for the last three years of the decade when burials once again triumphed over conceptions. After 1740 the tide certainly changed, and in our parish register statistics we can trace the evidence of unmistakable population growth. In the years 1740-1800 (with the exception of 1748, 1750, 1757 and 1788) the level of conceptions remained constantly higher than that of burials, and the gap between the two was growing. This was a phase of population growth unparalleled in previous decades, at least since the sixteenth century and probably before.
22
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
REFERENCES 1 In converting baptisms into conceptions, we have used the method advocated by the Cambridge Group for the study of Population and Social Structure. 2 The 1720s were bad in Sprotbrough and in Warmsworth; see Sprotbrough in History: Part Two (W.E.A., 1969), pp. 53-53a; and D. Holland, Warmsworth in the Eighteenth Century (Doncaster Museum, 1965), pp. 7-9.
23
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
4. AGRICULTURAL CHANGES a) The Dutch Drainage Those who have looked at the seventeenth century changes from Vermuyden’s point of view have presented an unbalanced picture of the effects of those changes. It is far from the truth to describe the area as almost totally under water, thinly populated, and poverty stricken before the drainage in 1626. The churches of Barnby Dun, Fishlake, and Hatfield do not lend support to such a legend, for they are magnificent structures of white magnesian limestone and a clear demonstration of the wealth of the area in medieval times.
The older historians argued that before Vermuyden’s scheme the inhabitants lived largely by fishing and fowling, and that he transformed the area into one of rich arable farming. But an economy based on fishing and fowling cannot provide sufficient surplus wealth to pay for the rebuilding of such churches - and others exist over the borders of Lincolnshire.1 They were very probably rebuilt on the profits of sheepfarming in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Many areas of the undrained land would be sufficiently dry in spring and summer for the grazing of sheep. Certainly, in these years, exports of woollen cloth were providing an outlet for the growing English woollen industry, the raw materials for which came mainly from English sheep.
Furthermore, most studies of the Dutch drainage have failed to stress that earlier attempts - admittedly on a smaller scale - were made to drain areas of flooded land. Professor Hallam has shown how co-operative groups of wealthy peasants were at work reclaiming land from the Lincolnshire Fens and from the Wash in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries.2 It is not yet possible to gauge how much similar work was done in the Hatfield area (around the edge of the wetter ground), but as early as 1546 there is a reference to ‘Sedykebank’,3 which probably represents the medieval limits of reclaimed land on the northern side of the parish and beyond which lay Thorne Mere. Although there had been some national interest in fen drainage in the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign, nothing came of various proposals until the second decade of the seventeenth century. Indeed, in 1602 24
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y the Crown had considered the possibility of raising money by selling Hatfield Chase. In 1621 James I had apparently considered the drainage of the fens as a means of making money and in 1622 he appointed a commission to enquire into the possibilities of draining the Chase. This Commission (composed of several large South Yorkshire landowners) thought any such venture impracticable, and no action was taken. But in 1626 the Hatfield Chase project was revived and an agreement drawn up between Vermuyden and Charles I (printed in J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase, pp. 237-9). The project was financed in the Netherlands and Vermuyden acted as engineer and agent for the other Dutch participants who had invested money in the scheme. Under the agreement, the drained land (amounting to some 70,000 acres) was to be divided up between the King, Vermuyden and the Participants, and the Commoners (owners of common-rights in the area) in three equal parts. As Professor Ashton has pointed out, the Crown mortgaged lands in Hatfield and neighbouring manors to Vermuyden, in return for his making a loan of £10,000 available to the Crown for four months; he subsequently foreclosed, and the transaction was ‘effectively little more than a form of indirect sale in which the purchaser made an advance payment of the purchase money before it was due’.4 As far as drainage was concerned the problem of Hatfield Chase consisted of the periodic flooding of the rivers in the surrounding area - Don, Torne, Idle, Aire, Went and Bycarrsdyke. Vermuyden thought that the Don, with its three branches in the lower reaches, was the main cause of flooding. He eventually cut a new straight channel (still known as the ‘Dutch River’) to replace these, and constructed ‘washes’ to take the overflowing water, should flooding occur in the future.
John Arlebout’s map of 1639 shows the physical effect of the Dutch drainage on the landscape. This map has been printed in numerous books, but little real use has previously been made of it; the WEA Group plotted its details on to the modern Ordnance Survey 21/2” map, showing just how Vermuyden’s scheme is related to the topography of the area today. A redrawn version of this composite map, showing only the main modern features which are necessary to orientate the seventeenth century ones, is included here (see Figure 25
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y 3).
It should be noted that the topographical effect of Vermuyden’s scheme was much more detailed than later technical descriptions of the work sometimes suggest, for it involved the construction of a multitude of small drains (called ‘canals’ on Arlebout’s plan) for the drainage of the area. And a surprising number of these have remained, retaining their original function, down to the present day. Pasture-farming was an important sector of the rural economy of this area in the later Middle Ages, and on the eve of the drainage, and the local inhabitants considered that regular winter flooding was beneficial to their pastures, rather than damaging. Because the Crown and the Dutch drainers failed to realise this really fundamental point in the local agricultural situation, there ensued the bitter struggles between them on the one hand and the Commoners on the other. It is these struggles - comprising physical violence and litigation - which occupy so many pages in the older local histories dealing with the area, and which it is therefore unnecessary to reprint here.5
REFERENCES 1 N. Pevsner, Buildings of Lincolnshire (Penguin, 1964). See also Joan Thirsk, ‘The Isle of Axholme before Vermuyden’, in Agricultural History Review, 1953. 2 H. E. Hallam, The New Lands of Elloe (Leicester, 1954), and Settlement and Society (Cambridge, 1965). 3 A. H. Smith, Place-Names of the West Riding, Part 1, pp. 7-12. 4 Robert Ashton, The Crown and the Money Market, 1603-1640 (London, 1960), p. 61. 5 The principal works by the 19th century local historians are: J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase (1882); J. Hunter, South Yorkshire: History and Topography of Deanery of Doncaster (2 vols., 1828 and 1831); W. B. Stonehouse, History and 26
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Topography of Isle of Axholme (1838).
b) The Open Fields and Enclosure The pattern of fields around Hatfield with which we are familiar today is largely a product of enclosure in the early nineteenth century; that is to say, regular-shaped and hedged fields were not a common feature of the agricultural scene before that time. The area was divided into open fields, each of which comprised innumerable furlongs divided up into strips. The layout of open fields in Hatfield on the eve of the enclosure is shown on Figure 4. A survey of 17741 gives the names of these open fields: West
Field, Hund Oak Field, Farr Field, Old Mill Field, New Mill Field, Haddam Field and Shearwood Field. It will be seen that there were seven fields, a timely reminder that the open field system can consist of any number of fields, and need not be limited to two or three. Originally, Old Mill Field and New Mill Field were one, for Mylnfelde is referred to in 1546 and it was ‘Millfield’ as late as 1764,2 having been subsequently divided to decrease the amount of land fallowed each year and presumably to facilitate a four-course rotation.3 And by the time of the Enclosure in 1811 there was a Furth Field, but this could represent a change of name rather than an additional field. The system of cultivation was tied to the township and not to the parish, for although Stainforth was in Hatfield parish it had its own system of open field cultivation. As well as field (or arable) land there was enclosed meadow land in ‘ings’: Brierham (or Brierholme) Ing, and North Ings, West Ings (occuring in 1324 as Westenege). Also areas of common pasture: Remple Common, Brick Hill Carr Common, the Lings (le Lynges in 1483), also known as Hatfield Common, Far Common, etc. In addition to all these, there was much low-lying peaty land known as ‘moors’, e.g. West Moor (there is a reference to le westmore as early as 1404), Bull Moors, Huggin Carr, and the large area of Hatfield Moors (High and Low Levels). Some of this land had been enclosed in Vermuyden’s time (for 27
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y this, see Figure 3) and some since then on a smaller scale. Where land had been enclosed the villagers often had special names for the closes, and only a fraction of these remain today. In the 1774 survey there are numerous close-names which are worth recording here: The Hagg, Park Carr Wood, Park Wood, Great Park Carr, Little Close, Park Carr, Park Hill, Leetham Park, West Field, Hawdy Close, Hawdy Field Close, Middle Closes, New Close, Horse Close, Ox Pasture, Intack, Hall Close, Hunter Close, South Field Close, Whinny Row, Burnt Ing, Spring Close, New Ing, Waife Close, Wood Coppies, Coupland Close, Rape Coppies, Lawnd Hill, Forty Acre, Sour Close, Moor Field, Warren, Whit Moss, Clay Close, Haigh Close, Six Acre, Hilly Close, Twenty Acre, Ten Acre, Brick Kiln Close, Broom Close, Watkin Close, Haigh Garth, Park House Close, Bushey Close, Near Warren, Farr Warren, High Park, Coppy Leys, Near Coppy Leys, Old Earth, Dawnby Croft, Manking Croft, Holme Wath, Long Garth, Great Garth, Manour House Fold, School House Croft, West Ing Close, North Ing Close, Gile Carr Close, Farr Bearswood Close, Near Bearswood Close, Fearn Carr, Truelove Croft, Hassocks, Langholm, Croft, Meerhills, High Watkin, Low Watkin. The Board of Agriculture Report4 in the 1790s shows that land use
in Hatfield was then as follows:
8830 acres of ground 3858 acres of grass 4972 acres of arable
Wheat …. Oats …. Beans …. Peas Fallow …. Clover …. Barley …. Potatoes ….
This arable area was cropped as follows: acres
1180 1145
75 1151 762 592 67
(Perhaps 300 acres of the fallow were sown with turnips.) 28
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y At a slightly earlier date Arthur Young gave the following details of local farms and their cultivation in his Northern Tour. 5 (A) 120 acres in all 20 acres of grass
£76 rent
100 acres arable 7 cows 200 sheep (rights of commonage)
6 horses 2 servants 2 labourers
The farmer sows 15 acres of wheat, 20 acres of beans, 30 acres of oats. (B) 170 acres in all 40 acres of grass
130 acres of arable 10 horses 12 cows 3 servants 3 labourers
He sows 30 acres of wheat, 60 acres of oats, 10 acres of rape, 10 acres of turnips. The Board of Agriculture Report also stated that it would be possible to make more use of the common land as it was if measures were taken to improve it by stinting (i.e. regulating the number of cattle each man could graze on it) than if it were enclosed. It also feared that engrossing (re-arranging landholdings to make farms bigger and reduce the number of farmsteads) would lead to some depopulation in the Hatfield area.6 Perhaps the most interesting part of the Board’s Report is the scathing criticism of Hatfield’s open fields, and this is worth quoting in full: At Hatfield there are very large common fields, the rotation upon which is turnips, barley, clover, wheat, and barley: and one of the fields not ploughed, but kept in meadow grass. We examined the turnip field, which consisted, as we were told, of 150 acres, and although of a soil exceedingly proper for that root, they were a crop not worth 20s. per acre. We heard afterwards they were only 29
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y valued at 15s. The turnips were quite small - few bigger than an egg, and the ground in the most wretched and dirty condition. It appeared they had not been hoed at all, or at least very imperfectly, a large proportion was covered with weeds; and worse culture cannot be figured. If the cultivation was bad, the manner of consuming them was still worse. The whole 150 acres were eating at once, and the stock appeared to be cattle and sheep of all ages and descriptions; such management needs no comment, it speaks for itself. Betwixt Hatfield and Thorn, there are great quantities of waste land, and much under water. Upon the whole, the land we have seen this day stands in the greatest need of improvement, which cannot be done without a previous division. The common fields to the eastward of Doncaster are abominable crooked and unequal. Some parts of the ridges being twice the breadth of another, and one solitary ridge of wheat often standing by itself - more wretched husbandry could not have prevailed a century ago.7 The combination of inefficient cultivation, wasteful animal feeding, and stock mixing, all in the one place, was obviously going to fill the eighteenth century scientific agriculturalist with horror. A complete picture of landownership and landholding in Hatfield on the eve of the Parliamentary Enclosure can be obtained by looking at the Land Tax assessment of 1811.8 It was a tax on the value of land and can, therefore, be used as a rough guide to the wealth of landowners and tenants at this time. Its contents are summarised in the following table: Amount of Tax Category of Up to 5s to 10s to 15s to 20s to Over Totals Taxpayer 5s 10s 15s 20s 30s 30s Owner Occupiers 64 23 9 5 3 6 110 Non-occupying 96 28 19 13 10 16 179 Owners Tenants 120 33 21 11 13 24 222 30
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
280
84
49
29
26
46
This reveals not only the very great number of landholdings at that time but also the large number paying less than 5s. Land Tax. In other words, a large number of landowners in Hatfield were small landowners. Increasing population and later French blockage of foreign corn supplies to England (both of which resulted in rising corn prices) in the late eighteenth century led to a boom in the enclosure of open fields and commons, because this was one way of increasing productivity and improving farming. To enclose its open fields a parish generally needed a private Act of Parliament - especially where there were more than one or two landowners, so that enclosure by agreement (which did not need an Act) would have been difficult. The dates of these private Acts9 for various parishes in this area
will indicate the progress of Parliamentary Enclosures: Armthorpe (1773), Auckley, Blaxton and Finningley (1774), Cantley (1777), Fenwick (1773), Moss and Kirk Bramwith (1780), Barnby Dun (1803), Kirk Sandall (1806), and Hatfield, Thorne, and Fishlake (1811).
The year when these Acts were passed sometimes marked the culmination of a long process of petitions, meetings, and arguments, and this was the case with the Hatfield, Thorne, and Fishlake Enclosure Act of 1811. The first Petition of the ‘Freeholders, Copyholders, and others, of the Parishes of Haitefeld, Thorne, and Fishlake, within the Manor of Haitefeld’ was sent to Parliament on 31st December, 1794. This Petition is worth printing in full, because it gives us an insight into the motives of the enclosers and tells us just what they wanted to do: A Petition of several Freeholders, Copyholders, and others, of the Parishes of Haitefeld, Thorne and Fishlake, within the Manor of Haitefeld, in the West Riding of the County of York whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to the House, and read; Setting forth, That there are, within the said Parishes, several Common Fields, Ings, Meadows, Pastures, Moors, Commons, and Waste Grounds, which, in their present situation, are incapable of any considerable Improvement, but, if the same were divided and 31
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y inclosed, and Allotments thereof made to the owners, and all other Persons interested therein, according to their respective Shares, Rights, and Interests, it would be an Improvement to their Estates: And therefore praying, That Leave may be given to bring in a Bill for dividing and inclosing the said Lands and Grounds, in such a Manner, and under such Regulations as the House shall think fit. Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, persuant to the Prayer of the said Petition: And that Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Duncombe do prepare, and bring in, the same.10
This Petition came to nought, and was followed by further abortive attempts to enclose in 1800, 1801-1803, and 1810.11 Then on 31st January, 1811, the first successful Petition was presented to Parliament, and the process by which this became an Act of Parliament was as follows. After the Petition was presented on 31st January, a bill was ordered, and this was presented on 4th March, read on 13th March, and passed over to a committee on 18th March. On 21st March a Petition of the Duke of St Albans against the proposed enclosure was presented, and referred to the committee. On 26th March there was a further petition of landowners against the enclosure, which was referred to the committee, and counsel ordered. On 29th March the Bill was reported, and ordered to be improved. It was read again on 1st April, agreed to by the Lords on 10th April, and it received the Royal Assent (thus becoming an Act of Parliament) on 11th April, 1811. 12 When the Act had been passed the Enclosure Commissioners and surveyor could begin the work of surveying the allocation of landholdings in the open fields, and the distribution of common grazing rights, with a view to making alternative allocations of land in enclosed plots.13
They were directly responsible for much of the field-pattern visible today, although a detailed study of the 1854 Ordnance Survey 6� maps for the area has shown that just over a hundred years ago many more field-boundaries (hedges) existed than is the case today. When the Enclosure Commissioners divided up the parish into newly-enclosed plots in 1811 the size of fields was related to the motive-power of the day - horses - whilst the spread of mechanised farming since the late nineteenth century has meant a movement towards larger fields and 32
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y the consequent grubbing-up of unnecessary hedges. Where this has happened the silted ditch and remains of the hedge can sometimes still be seen.
In some cases, farmers eventually built new farmsteads on their enclosed holdings away from the village centre, whilst others continued to live in their farmsteads on the village street and even to rebuild them there. The first task of the Enclosure Commissioners was invariably to define the public and private roads, and the public footpaths in the parish, and in Hatfield some of these were as follows:Public Carriage Roads: Bawtry and Selby Turnpike Road, Sandtoft Road, Dale Pit Road, Westby’s Road, Clay Lane Road, New Mill Field Road, Hatfield Woodhouse and Doncaster Road, Dunscroft Road, Stainforth and Hatfield Road.
Private Carriage Roads (and public bridleways): Old Mill Field Road, Welburn Road, Brierholme Ings Road, Cable Road, North Ings Road, North Ings Shutt Road, Bull Lane Road, Firth Field Road, Townside Road, West Field Road, Carr Side Road, Tudworth Road. The footpaths are too many to enumerate.
The allocation of land by the Commissioners, according to acreage, was as shown by the following table:
Size of Holding Less than 1 acre 1 - 5 acres 5 - 10 “ 10 - 20 “ 20 - 30 “ 30 - 50 “ 50 - 100 “ Over 100 acres TOTAL
Number of Landowners 16 24 17 7 4 3 2 1 74
Finally it should be pointed out that by the time Hatfield’s open-fields 33
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y were enclosed in 1811, they were no longer as extensive as they had originally been. This is shown by two manuscript maps indicating their whereabouts.14 The irregular shape of the open-fields and their diminished size show that some enclosure had taken place at an earlier date, but when this was it is not possible to say.
REFERENCES 1 Leeds City Archives, TN/HC/C9. (‘A Survey of the Estate of the Right Honourable Lord Visct. Irwin at Hatfield &c., in the West Riding of Yorkshire by John Lund, Jnr. 1774’.)
2 These and subsequent dates to field-names, etc., in this paragraph are from A. H. Smith, op.cit., pp. 7-12. 3 For a similar move in Warmsworth, see D. Holland, ‘Warmsworth in the 18th Century’ (Doncaster Museum, 1965), pp. 16-17. 4 R. Brown, A General View of the Agriculture of the West Riding (Edinburgh, 1799), pp. 93-94. 5 A. Young, Northern Tour (2nd edn., London, 1771), vol. 1, pp. 241-2 6 Brown, op.cit., p. 94.
7 Ibid., Appendix, pp. 37-38.
8 W. R. County Hall, Wakefield: County Records, Land Tax Assessments, 1780-1832. 9 Dates given in B. A. English, Handlist of West Riding Enclosure Awards (N.R.A., 1965). 10 House of Commons Journal, vol. 50, p. 7.
11
Ibid., vol. 55, pp. 290, 553-554, 589, 742; vol. 56, pp. 197, 447ff., 479; and vols. 57, 58 and 65. Multiple landownership and drainage problems were probably the cause. See also, Nottingham University Manuscripts Dept. - H.C.6240 (bundle).
12 House of Commons Journal, vol. 66.
13 All information on the results of the Enclosure Commissioners’ work is drawn from the Enclosure Award in Thorne Public Library; the Award was completed in 1825. 14 Sheffield City Library, Dept. of Archives, Baxter Papers, 32 and 33.
c) Later Drainage and Warping
34
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Vermuyden attempted to drain only part of the area, and later schemes came into being to enable full agricultural use to be made of the waterlogged land. A sketch-map to illustrate this section is included (Figure 5). John Rennie’s survey of 1813 suggested ways of improving local drainage. In his report1 he maintained that if the banks of the river Torne were kept in good repair and the channel of the river kept clear the adjacent parts of the Chase would be safe. But he remarked that the New Idle (which supposedly drained about 9,000 acres of lowlands) was working so badly that the greater part of the district was frequently flooded. Rennie noted that the drains had many inadequacies. The New Cut, Woodhouse Sewer and Dicken Dike were discharging water from 20,000 acres of lowland through the sluices at Keadby, but (despite this) frequent flooding hampered agricultural activities. The South Side Drain of the Stainforth and Keadby Canal could discharge water from about 5,000 acres but this was often unsatisfactory.
He not only criticised the efficiency of these drains but also warned that new drainage would automatically occur with enclosure and these existing drains would fail to cope with additional drainage even if they were cleaned and maintained. He suggested that the solution would be not only to alter and increase the drains, but also to give special attention to the provision of adequate outfalls for the floodwaters from the ‘high lands’.
He was keen that the flood-water from the high lands should be kept separate from the water off the ‘low lands’. The low lands are the areas immediately in the vicinity of the River Trent and the high lands are areas stretching from Finningley towards Misson and Cantley. His recommendation was for the construction of a catchwater drain from the Torne at Fulsick Nook, which was to be continued by the side of the road to the glebe lands in Finningley and thence to skirt the high lands of that parish and of Austerfield to the road at Newington. Another catchwater drain was to be made from the previous one in Finningley and was to skirt the high lands of Misson, and another branch from thiswas to skirt the high lands of Finningley. This was to 35
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y drain about 5,000 acres of high lands into the Torne without coming onto the low lands. He proposed that Dicken Dike and the Woodhouse Sewer should be straightened and enlarged from the north-west of Cantley to the junction of Woodhouse Sewer with the Dutch Dike, and recommended that a new drain be constructed from this junction to the Back Drain of the Keadby Canal near Wike Gate, and that communication with the drain at Stooper’s Gate be discontinued. This new drain would have a rise of approximately eight inches in a mile and would intercept the water falling off at least 7,000 acres of high land which was falling into the Level of Hatfield Chase.
In 1848 the Thorne Moor Drainage and Improvement Act was passed.2 The Thorne Moor Improvement Company was formed with a capital of ÂŁ37,000, and its directors were Richard Ellison, Edmund Denison, John Whittaker, Edmund Godfrey, Robert Baxter and Makin Durham. The Company had fairly extensive powers to authorise the drainage of the moorland as a means of improving it and even to alter existing drains where necessary. They were to ensure that the banks, bridges, tunnels, etc., were maintained in good repair and to negotiate with the owners of ancient enclosures within the parishes of Thorne and Goole whenever it was necessary to pass through their land with drainage works. Private warping and draining activities had been practised by certain individuals whose lands were declared exempt from the provisions of this Act. The Company had the power to alter roads passing over the moorland and afterwards the owners of the improved land were to pay for the upkeep of such roads.
It was stated in this Act that all drainage, warping and improvement had to be completed within twenty years from the passing of the said Act. To pay for these improvements the landowners were allowed to raise mortgages with the company which held the land until such improvements had been paid for, including the appropriate interest. A further Act was passed in 1854 giving added powers to the Company and also allowing them to purchase drains which were already in use and owned by the land owners.3 These drains had to be altered and enlarged in order to cope with the drainage now being undertaken in the high lands around Finningley, Misson and Belton. The Hatfield Chase Corporation was established by an Act of 36
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y 1862, which gave the owners of land liable to be taxed for drainage purposes a vote and an additional vote for every 50 acres. The governing Board consisted of nine commissioners, six being elected by the participants (these were the descendants of the Dutchmen, or purchasers of their land) and three by the rateable owners. This Corporation continued to function until the formation of the Trent Catchment Board in 1935. The finance of the Corporation was raised by taxes levied by the Corporation for the upkeep of drains and roads.4
In 1866 the Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement (Railway) Act was passed.5 This gave them powers to build a railway on the banks already built for drainage purposes. The railway was to run from Haxey Gate to Owston and Stockwith. The tonnage charges on this railway are very interesting. Stone, castings, etc., were charged at 6d per ton. Pig iron, sheet iron, rolled iron, bricks, salt were charged at 7d per ton. Sugar, grain, timber, anvils and vices at 9d per ton. Cotton, wools and manufactured goods at 1s per ton. People and animals (such as an ox or a horse) at 6d per journey. This railway was to be operated by the Great Northern and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway.
The process of warping, dealt with privately and by the Company under the Acts, is worth special mention. When the rivers Trent and Don flooded, a grey silt deposit known as ‘warp’ was deposited on the surrounding land covered by the flood water. It was noticed that this natural process increased the fertility of the land affected, and consequently attempts were made to engineer the process of warping artificially. It was first tried out in small areas, probably in the Howden area.6 Ralph Creyke, Esq., of Rawcliffe House, described to the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts how he had successfully warped 429 acres on his estates around Howden in the 1820s.7 The fields to be warped were banked round and drains dug from the river; the water was then allowed to flood the fields via the drains and kept there by closing the sluices until the second return of the tide after which the sluices were opened and the water was allowed to flow off. The same process was repeated on the occurrence
37
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y of the next tide. By this means the soil was enriched, and in one season a deposit of silt from 12 to 16 inches could be obtained. REFERENCES 1 Report of John Rennie, Esq., on the Drainage of Hatfield Chase, Jan. 16th ,1813. Copy in MSS Dept., University of Nottingham (H.C.C. Papers, 6171). 2 Thorne Moor Drainage and Improvement Act 1848. Copy in MSS Dept., University of Nottingham (H.C.C. Papers). 3 Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement Act 1854. Copy in MSS Dept., University of Nottingham (H.C.C. Papers, bundle 8781). 4 J. Tomlinson, The Level of Hatfield Chase, p. 110. 5 Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement Act (Railway) 1866. Copy in MSS Dept., University of Nottingham (H.C.C. Papers, 8793). 6 J. Hunter, South Yorkshire: The History and Topography of the Deanery of Doncaster, vol. 1 (London, 1828), p. 174. See also J. Thirsk, English Peasant Farming (London 1957), p. 290, for small-scale warping in Lincolnshire before 1800. 7 Hunter, ibid., p. 174.
5. HATFIELD AND ITS PEOPLE IN THE EARLY 19th CENTURY
38
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y At a time when communications were less developed and villages like Hatfield more isolated than today, a wider variety of occupations was to be found in them. The transport revolution initiated by the internal combustion engine has brought the town and its facilities within the villager’s easy reach. But in the early nineteenth century things were much more localised and life revolved almost completely around the parish church, the local inns, and the village street. A good picture of village life at this time can be obtained from commercial directories, such as those published in 1822, 1837, and 1861.1
The majority of the inhabitants of Hatfield lived by farming - in 1837 there were 74 farmers in the parish, of whom 21 were owneroccupiers, and this number does not take into account the countless families in which the wage-earner was a farm labourer (an occupation too numerous and too lowly for the Directory to mention). Most of the rest of the working population found employment in those crafts so necessary to a farming community - 8 blacksmiths, 8 wheelwrights, 2 machine-makers,1 joiner (in addition to the wheelwrights and machinemakers, who also worked in wood), 2 saddlers, 5 corn-millers, 4 malsters, and 16 boot and shoe makers. Then there were 30 shopkeepers, including butchers, grocers, drapers, tailors and clothiers. Making up the full range of rural occupations were a strawhat maker, a mattress maker, a hairdresser, a glazier and painter, 2 bricklayers, 2 cattle dealers, and a castrator.
Peculiar to Stainforth were canal-side occupations like coal merchants, sloop owners, sailmakers, a boat builder, and there were also mariners and one lock keeper. The Stainforth and Keadby Canal was cut in 1793, from Stainforth on the Don to Keadby on the Trent, and in 1837 the village was described as ‘a well-built village on the River Don, at its confluence with the Stainforth and Keadby canal, which extends the navigation to Thorne, Crowle, and the Trent. Here are two good bridges (Plate 9) over the river and the canal, and a spacious quay, with cranes and other conveniences for a considerable number of sloops, of which many belong to the inhabitants’.2 (Plate 10) Besides the working classes there was a much smaller group of 39
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y professional people, among whom in 1837 were 4 surgeons, 3 clergymen, 6 academy owners, 2 schoolmasters, an architect and a solicitor. In 1822 there had been a civil engineer. Also, there was a large number of people who are described in the directories simply as ‘Esq.’ Or ‘Gent.’ these would include landowners and people with private incomes, some of them retired, and in 1837 this group numbered at least 16 (that is, not counting their families and dependants). In 1822 this group had included three commissioned officers retired from the armed services, but by 1837 only the widow of one of these remained in Hatfield. (Plate 11). There were ten inns in the parish in 1837, some in the village centres of Hatfield and Stainforth and others in remoter parts, such as the Black Bull Inn on the High Levels, catering especially for people who lived in the scattered farmsteads of that area. In the 1861 Directory the Ingram Arms was said to afford ‘good accommodation’ but at that time it is likely that few of the other inns had residential facilities. Links with the outside world would mainly be by meeting travellers passing through the parish - e.g. along the Doncaster-Thorne and Bawtry-Selby turnpike roads through Hatfield and Hatfield Woodhouse, or the canal and river at Stainforth. Farmers also regularly marketed their produce in Doncaster and sometimes in Hull. Carriers’ carts went from Hatfield to Thorne every day and to Doncaster on Saturdays, and coaches left Hatfield for Thorne and Doncaster twice a day. There was also a post office in Hatfield village, with collections in both the morning and the afternoon.
Whilst it has been said that an important institution around which local life revolved was the parish church, it should be pointed out that some inhabitants attended Nonconformist churches. In 1837 Hatfield had an Independent Chapel and a Primitive Methodist Chapel, the latter newly built in 1835. At Stainforth the Church of England had a chapel of ease (rebuilt in 1819), and the Unitarians, Wesleyans, and Primitive Methodists all had small chapels in the village. This was a far cry from 1743, when the Vicar of Hatfield, William Drake, wrote: We have no Meeting House, nor any Dissenters in the Parish.3 40
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Schools existing in the parish in 1837 comprised six academics in Hatfield (about which we know nothing beyond the fact that they are listed in the Directory for that year under the names of their owners and that two of these took boarders), a free school (now known as the Travis School) which had originally been built in 1682, and a free school in Stainforth erected by public subscription in 1826 which had 16 scholars in 1837. The 1822 Directory had also listed a schoolmaster in Hatfield Woodhouse, although he appears to be missing in later directories. It is difficult to assess the significance of these local educational institutions, but the marriage registers give some guide when the percentage of marriage partners signing their own names is calculated. This is admittedly only a rough indication, but probably most pupils leaving these schools would not be able to do much more than read, write, and make simple calculations. Data has been collected from the parish registers for the years 1754-1782 and 1837-1868. Out of the 350 marriages recorded between 1754 and 1782, in only 32% were both partners able to sign; in another 36% the man alone could sign, in another 4% the woman alone could sign, and in another 28% neither of the partners could sign. Expressed in another way, this analysis shows that of the marriage partners in Hatfield in the years 1754-1782, sixty-eight per cent of the males could sign their own names, whilst only thirty-six per cent of the females could do this. Thus the female population was less literate than the male population; but the figures also reveal that a significant percentage of the people (twenty-eight per cent) did not possess even the bare essentials of literacy. The marriages (878) recorded for the years 1837-1868 show that in forty-seven per cent both partners could sign, in another twenty-two per cent only the man could sign, in another nine per cent only the woman could sign, and in another twenty-two per cent neither partner could sign. This gives us sixty-nine per cent of males who could sign, and fifty-six per cent of the females. Thus, the increase in literacy which those figures chronicle was a substantial increase in female literacy brought about by the growing local educational opportunities of the first half of the nineteenth century. There are, for example, fifty scholars in the 1851 census schedules 41
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y for Hatfield Woodhouse alone.4
The Commercial Directories list only what they call the ‘principal inhabitants’ of a place, so that we cannot exactly guage the size of different sectors of the wage-working population from them. After 1837, though, the Hatfield parish registers (in common with those of other parishes) list the occupations of marriage partners. In addition, the 1851 census schedules give us a detailed picture of the social structure of the population in this one year.
The marriage register for 1837-1868 has been analysed, revealing the following occupational and social structure of the parish. Out of 494 people whose occupations are recorded in these thirty years it will be seen that 47.5% constituted what might be called the ‘miscellaneous workers’, whilst another 17.6% were craftsmen. The remainder comprised larger landowners and professional people (16.6%), transport occupations (11.5%), shopkeepers and tradesmen (4.6%), and a clerical or ‘white-collar’ group (1.6%). We should expect nearly 50% of the occupations to be in group V at this period, and for the other groups to be correspondingly smaller, but the size of group I is perhaps somewhat larger than we would expect to find in the average English village of this time. Whilst in comparison with the total population the actual size of groups III and IV was not large, the diversity of shops, trades, and crafts represented is wide; it shows something of the economic diversity and resilience of the English village before the Railway Age. (See Figure 6) The 1851 Census schedules for Hatfield Woodhouse5 (Plate 12)
present us with a full occupational structure of one part of the parish in that year. They have been analysed in the following list of occupations, excluding housewives and children not at school or in any occupation.
agricultural labourers scholars
92 50
42
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
farmers servants wheelwrights bootmakers blacksmiths dressmakers tailors innkeepers cordwainers hucksters butchers carpenter joiner miller miller’s labourer broom maker weaver superannuated R.N. gunner annuitant nailmaker laundress drover schoolmaster
25 11 7 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TOTAL NUMBER IN ABOVE ANALYSIS
219
The following figures summarise population during the whole of the nineteenth century; Census taken at ten-yearly intervals.6 1801 … 1,773 1861 1811 … 2,066 1871 1821 … 2,642 1881 1831 … 3,000 1891 1841 … 2,939 1901 1851 … 2,721
trends in Hatfield parish the figures are from the … … … … …
2,564 2,543 2,570 2,339 2,377
The population of the parish reached its peak in the third decade of the nineteenth century, and thereafter continued to decline; even by 43
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y the end of the century, though, it had not fallen to the level of 1801. The decline of rural population during the nineteenth century is a commonplace of English social history - the actual time when the tide turned varies from area to area between 1831 and 1851.
REFERENCES 1 E. Baines, History, Directory, and Gazetteer of the County of York, vol. 1 (2 vols., Leeds, 1822), p. 518.
W. White, History, Gazetter, and Directory of the West Riding of Yorkshire, vol. 2 (2 vols., Sheffield, 1837), pp. 182-188.
Post Office Directory of the West Riding of Yorkshire with the City of York (Kelly, London, 1861), pp. 327-329.
2
White, ibid., p. 186.
3
Archbishop Herring’s Visitation Returns, 1743, Vol. 2 (Y.A.S., R.S., vol. LXXII).
4 & P.R.O., H.O.: Hatfield Woodhouse Township, Hatfield Parish, W.R. 5 Yorks. (Analysis of Crown Copywright records appears by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.) 6
Census tables, 1801-1901, printed in Victoria County History, Yorkshire, vol. III. Hatfield is on page 545.
6. THE GROWTH OF HATFIELD IN THE TWENTIETH
44
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
CENTURY In the 20th century Hatfield changed from a small rural community to one of the largest villages in the neighbourhood of Doncaster. More than this, coal-mining developed within the old parish boundary and new settlements sprung into existence.
In 1910 the Hatfield Main Colliery Company was founded, and in 1912 sinking operations began on a site seven miles north-east of Doncaster in the northern part of the old Hatfield parish. The site was, in fact, nearer to Stainforth than Hatfield (three-quarters and one and a half miles away respectively). Also, in 1885 Hatfield parish was subdivided - Stainforth becoming a separate ecclesiastical parish, with the railway line being taken as the boundary between Hatfield and Stainforth parishes - so that the colliery-sinking operations were taking place over the parish boundary in Stainforth. The Barnsley seam of coal was reached in August 1916. This colliery was well situated with regard to transport, being almost adjacent to the Great Central Railway (later L.N.E.R.), to which it was connected by sidings and less than one mile from the Stainforth and Keadby Canal. It was the nearest colliery, at that time, to the ports of Keadby, Immingham, and Grimsby.1 In 1927 Hatfield Main Colliery Company was acquired by the Carlton Main Colliery Company, and it was decided to develop the High Hazel coal seam in addition to the already-worked Barnsley seam. The colliery was completely reorganised and re-equipped in an attempt to increase production. In 1927 - when the Carlton Company took over Hatfield - 2,300 men were employed, and the maximum daily output was 2,400 tons. By 1930 the colliery employed 3,600 men and the maximum daily output was 4,700 tons. In other words, in three years the labour force had been increased by only fifty per cent, whilst production had risen by over one hundred per cent. By 1930 the Carlton Group of collieries had an annual productive capacity of about six million tons and employed about 15,000 workpeople - so that Hatfield Main Colliery had clearly become part of a big industrial organisation.2 The colliery workers at Hatfield Main were housed both by the 45
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y company and later by the local council as well. The old village of Stainforth covered quite a small area by the river and canal, but with the sinking of the colliery the housing development in this place was tremendous. One of Stainforth’s open fields before the enclosure of 1811 had been Church Field; now the smaller enclosed fields which had then replaced it were covered with colliery housing. At the same time Dunscroft was developed about a mile south of the colliery and one mile west of Hatfield itself, and here roads led off a long northsouth road - Broadway, over a mile long. By 1930 there were 1,471 colliery houses which had been built by the colliery owners, and most of these were fitted with bathrooms.3
There was a Social Section at the colliery, which arranged concerts and lectures for the workers.4 The Workers’ Educational Association (WEA) was also active in organising adult classes; in the year 193738, for example, there were four WEA classes in Stainforth, with a total of fifty-six students.5 Under the Miners’ Welfare Scheme, the community was provided with Welfare Grounds, comprising a Welfare Hall, tennis courts, bowling greens, cricket and football pitches, and a children’s playground. The Welfare Hall included billiards and refreshment rooms. Garden competitions were also held. 6 Dunsville is an inter-war development along the main DoncasterScunthorpe road, about one and a half miles south-west of Hatfield village. Semi-detached houses here comprise a ribbon-development so typical of the inter-War years.
All these housing developments had little physical impact on the old village of Hatfield, because the new housing developments in Stainforth, Dunscroft, and Dunsville had their own services and shops. The great development of Hatfield has taken place since 1945. Building was commenced by the Council on the Grange Estate, situated opposite the Manor, and they also took property over in Crookesbroom Avenue and Cemetery Road. At the same time private building was going forward very rapidly, chiefly in Station Road, Crookesbroom Lane, Manor Road, around Ash Hill, and the Remple Lane area of Hatfield Woodhouse. Much of this development has taken place during the last six years or so. This has been partly due 46
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y to an expansion of light industries in the Doncaster area, offering new employment opportunities. Increased family wealth led people to buy houses away from the industrialised and urban areas. Thus Hatfield, appearing to be a pleasant place in which to live and providing easy access to Doncaster, was a natural choice for housing development. By 1961 the population of the ‘village’ had risen to 11,344.7 Several sources of employment have arisen in the immediate neighbourhood since the Second World War - gravel quarries at Dunsville and Hatfield Woodhouse, two small engineering works in the village of Hatfield, two bus company garages in the area, and the Borstal (formerly a wartime military camp) on the road from Hatfield to Thorne. Owing to all this growth, the school population has greatly increased. A secondary modern school at Ash Hill was opened in 1940 and extensions have been added to the church school (Travis). There is now another primary school on the Crookesbroom estate. All this modern development has taken place around the core of the old community - the main street in Hatfield village, which still contains some fine old houses (described in a previous chapter). A few of these houses gave way to new property and this altered the appearance of the street. Another recent development is the way in which an old house like ‘Pyenest’ has been divided up into flats; this is a reflection of the social revolution of our times. Whilst such a large early Victorian house is too large for most families, it lends itself to conversion into apartments. This is a development which was formerly commonplace only in towns, but which looks like spreading even more in rural areas in future years. Hatfield Main Colliery at Stainforth closed in the late 1980’s. REFERENCES
47
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y 1 The Hatfield Main Colliery Co. Ltd. (Guildford, n.d., C.1930), p. 1 2 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 3 Ibid., p. 22. 4 Ibid., p. 22. 5 Information from the Workers’ Educational Association. 6 The Hatfield Main Colliery Co. Ltd., pp. 22-23. 7 Census, 1961: County Reports - Yorks. W. R. (H.M.S.O., 1963), p. 15.
APPENDIX
48
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
Occupational Structure of Hatfield Parish, 1837-68 (Source: Marriage Registers) Group I Landowning and Professional Groups Esquires and Gentlemen Farmers Farmer & Valuer Yeoman Surgeon Solicitor Veterinary Surgeon Professor of Singing Schoolmaster Wesleyan Minister
(16.6%) 0.8 13.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Group II Clerical or ‘White Collar’ Group (1.6%) Attorney’s Clerk Clerk Writer in Solicitor’s Office Policeman Officer of Inland Revenue Ship Broker
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Group III Shopkeepers and Tradesmen (4.6%) Shopkeeper Butcher Chemist and Druggist Grocer and Draper Innkeeper Huckster Hay Dealer Cattle Dealer Group IV Craftsmen, etc. (17.6%) Cordwainer
49
0.2 2.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Joiner Shoemaker Miller Miller & Baker Tailor Carpenter Farmer & Carpenter Wheelwright Blacksmith Gardener Stonemason Compositor Coachmaker Weaver Mattress-maker Watchmaker Nailmaker Saddler Millwright Iron moulder Painter Builder Machine maker Silversmith Mechanic Hairdresser Shipwright
2.2 1.8 1.8 0.2 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Group V Miscellaneous Workers (47.5%) Labourer Farming man Miner Porter Woodman Butler Servant
36.2 7.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.1
50
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y Coachman Bricklayer Fireman Groom
0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2
Group VI Transport (11.5%) Waterman Sailor Boat hauler Railway guard Locomotive fireman Station Master
5.7 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Number of People with Stated Occupations: 494
NOTES ON PLATES
51
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y 1.
A traditional brick-and-pantile farmhouse and barn, built circa 1700 towards the west end of High Street, Hatfield. The house was divided into cottages in the 19th century, when the streetend of the barn was converted into a cottage. Large stone gateposts mark the entrance to the farmyard. (1966). Barn since demolished.
2.
A farmyard viewed from the Back Lane. Brick-and-pantile farmhouse and farm buildings occupy the space nearest to the High Street, whilst the later Dutch barn was built near the Back Lane. (1966)
3.
Back Lane from the east end. This runs parallel to High Street on the south side. There was formerly a Back Lane on the north side of the village, but its line is now marked only by hedge banks. (1966)
4. Aerial view of Hatfield, looking east. High Street is the spine of the village, with narrow house plots along either side. This area, bounded by back lanes on the north and south sides of the village, may mark a replanning of the village after c. 1200. Another series of narrow house plots (at right angles to High Street) in the foreground may relate to a late 13th century expansion of the village. The Anglo-Saxon and early Norman village probably lay immediately around the church, and would have had a less regular layout. (Circa 1963) 5.
St Lawrence’s Church, Hatfield, from the south-east. (1966)
6.
St Lawrence’s Church, Hatfield: the north aisle, looking west. At the west end is a small Norman window, but the striking feature of the aisle is the 15th century use of transverse arches to give additional support to the clerestory. (1966)
7. Bow House, Ash Hill, Hatfield. A large brick house of c. 1800, which takes its name from its elegant two-storey bay windows. (1966) 8. An early 19th century farmhouse at Hatfield Woodhouse, built of brick and rendered over. The fan-light over the door and the twostorey bay windows distinguish this elegant village farmhouse. 52
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y The hung-sash windows originally had small panes, later replaced with plate glass. (1966) 9. Stainforth Bridge. A view of the old wooden turn (swing) bridge the River Don. (Circa 1900) 10. Stainforth Canalside. Houses, inns, and boatyards still lined both sides of the canal in this photograph (c. 1900). Most of the community has now disappeared. 11. Wyndthorpe Hall, Dunsville. In 1850 this was called Park Lane Hall, but its name was changed to Wyndthorpe Hall when the Chetwynd family lived there. It stands near the south-western boundary of Hatfield parish, and was probably built circa 183040. (1966) 12. Hatfield Woodhouse: the Pinfold. This was an essential feature of the open-field community, as it was where stray animals were impounded. Owners had to pay a fine when reclaiming animals. (1966) Now demolished. 13. Thackray House, built by Joseph Thackray (1772- 1828), civil engineer. It dates from c. 1800-10, though the cottage at the rear is dated 1768. 14. The Court House (c. 1800), where manorial courts for the Manor of Hatfield were held. 15 & Two views of Hatfield House barn and stables, built c.1780 16 1800. Hatfield House itself was demolished c. 1960 for building development. This building, which once belonged to it, still stands.
53
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 1
54
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 2
55
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 3
56
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 4
57
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 5
58
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 6
59
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 7
60
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 8
61
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 9
62
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
P L AT E
63
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
P L AT E
64
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
P L AT E
65
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
P L AT E
66
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
P L AT E
67
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
PLATE 15 & 16
68
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 1
69
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 2
70
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 3 71
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 4
72
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 5
73
H AT F I E L D i n H I S T O R Y
FIGURE 6
74