On the 6th January Sandra Burgess presented a talk about Manor Court Rolls. The talk was based on the records of several manors including the manors of Keele and Tunstall. Mrs Burgess explained that historians believe that the manor court existed in Saxon times but became important after the Norman conquest in 1066. They continued to be the main form of secular social management until 1566 when Justices of the Peace became more common and after that date the power of the manorial courts began to decline.
Mrs Burgess began by describing the structure of a manor, in the general sense, i.e. a church, village, manor house and open field system. She explained that the manor was not the same thing as a parish and that several parishes could exist within a manor. (Note: In Audley several manors existed within the parish, they were the manors of Podmore, incorporated into the manor of Apedale, which co existed in the parish with the manor of Audley) She went on to describe the inhabitants, e.g. Franklins who held the land in exchange for military service and Villeins who held their land in exchange for agricultural services.
Mrs Burgess then went on to describe the various manor courts; the Court Leet, which looked after the villeins, village discipline, constables and election of the manorial officials, the Court Baron that was concerned with freeholders, agricultural disputes and tenancy changes. In addition to the Court Leet and Baron there were also the Small Courts.
Mrs Burgess then went on to describe some of the processes and mechanisms of the Manorial Courts including, fines, amercements and essoins. She ended the talk with a series of examples of original documents and argued the very convincing case that in the period after 1733 (of more later) a good series of Manorial Court documents represented the closest thing to a census available and that genealogists and family historians should make far more use of them.
The real problem with Manor Court Rolls is that: -
before 1651 they are written in abbreviated Latin,
during the commonwealth, 1651- 1660, they are in English and useable.
from 1660 to 1733 they revert to Latin.
The real period of interest for family historians is the period from 1733 to 1841.
This was an interesting and enthusiastically presented talk on what is an important and under utilised source. Around 30 members and guests showed their appreciation in keen style at the end of a very well received talk.
PS and not part of the talk. The Society holds transcribed copies of the Audley Manor Court Rolls for the period 1759 – 1765.
There are several references to the Audley Manor Court Rolls in the Boughey Papers in the Staffordshire County Record Office: -
SRO D(W)1788 Parcel 32 / Box 3 period 1533-1696, some in English
SRO D(W)1788 Parcel 32 / Box 3 period 1430-1432
SRO D(W)1788 Parcel 40 / Box 2 period 1554 –1648
SRO D(W)1788 Parcel 40 / Box 5 period 1545 –1697
The Court Rolls of the Manor of Apedale appear to be lost.
The society now has the following new records available to members:
· 1837online.com has acquired the archives currently live on the website www.nationalarchivist.com. Any National Archivist credits will be converted to 1837online.com units when the merger takes place and subscribers will then be able to use their remaining credits to search all the archives combined on www.1837online.com
In Britain as a whole Hilditch is not a common name. Most dictionaries of surnames do not include it, those that do give the simple derivation "dweller on the hill, by the ditch".
The earliest records that I have found relating to Hilditch are: - three children of Nicholas Hilditch baptized Betley 1543 to 1550, many baptisms in Barthomley from 1562 and burials in Barthomley from 1567. Most entries only give the name of the individual buried and many would have been children. The earliest entry, Thomas Hilditch, buried 20th April 1567, is stated to be "Clericus" and therefore presumably therefore "of good age." Only later do records give abode. The earliest burials likely to be of adults are; Randle of the Hole in Alsager, buried 1590 and Richard of the Bank, buried 1594.
Bank farm still exists; it is now called Bankhouse Farm.
The Hole was probably "Holehouse farm", now Home Farm. To the north of Home Farm is a stream, which could reasonably be called a ditch.
Between the Hole, and the Bank the ground rises. It is not a sizable hill but the 1882 Ordnance map calls the house then there, "The Hill". So it was locally known as a hill. On the hill now lies "The Hall". Speculation is that an earlier building on "the hill" may have been the dwelling of Thomas, noted above, clericus, buried 1567 and that both the Bank and the Hole may have been taken from his estate by two of his sons. Dwellers on this hill could well have been called "Hilditch".
For further speculation, it is noted in James Sutton's Alsager that in 1356 there was a grant of land by the son of Nicholas de Alsager to Henry de Hawode, chaplain, of land, now probably known as Bankhouse Farm. Was Thomas Hilditch (Hyldych), a later chaplain to the de Alsager family, who managed to pass the land to his family?
Alternatively, Hilditch maybe a corruption of Holditch. Holditch village, hamlet or farm was originally a Roman civil settlement, Roman name unknown. It was sited to the south west of Chesterton and is now, effectively, part of Newcastle under Lyme and about 5 mile from Alsager; many surnames are derived from place names.
An early spelling of Hilditch was Hyldych, phonetically close to the present pronunciation. Early spellings of Holditch were Holdich, Hooldiche, Holydyche and it seem likely to have had a different pronunciation, but in an area that can jump from Alsager to Awger and back it may mean nothing.
Both derivations are credible. I lack local knowledge, is there anything known locally that may help differentiate? As a further consideration, both may be true, and have simply merged.
E. Austin Hilditch
The following review of one of our books, by Bob Wyatt, appeared in the prestigious journal ‘Stand To!’ published by the Western Front Association in Number 75, January 2006, p.68:
Raymond Lawton (Ed): ‘In the Pink’: The Letters of John Lawton 1915-1919.
This is an edited selection from an interesting and continuous correspondence relating to a lieutenant who joined the ranks in 1915 as a category ‘C’ man (he had poor eyesight and wore spectacles), was involved in Home defence, before gaining his commission and serving with a Labour battalion on the Western Front. The editor has skilfully linked the letters, although much of the experience is typical and mundane, but Labour battalion memoirs and letters are rare and there is much of interest. For example: ‘You ought to see the men comprising this Coy. There is a large percentage of Expeditionary men but the remainder are ghastly. I can only quote a remark made by the RSM today – “Before I saw ‘em in flesh and blood I never dreamed that such awful … specimens could possibly exist”. It’s an absolute crime for them to be sent here. The consist of men sick of the palsy, halt, lame and blind, hunchbacks, men with curvature of the spine from birth, men with St. Vitus’ Dance, men who are stone deaf and absolutely dumb, men who are absolute and utter imbeciles. I’ve not exaggerated one atom…’ Our letter writer survived intact and lived a long life. A most interesting series of letters on an unusual aspect of the war in France.
(The editor wishes to thank Ian Bailey for providing this review)