Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History by Robert Bucholz, Newton Key Read Free Book Online Page B

had fallen from the beginning of the century by as much as one-third.
    If we had chosen to visit a small hamlet in the rugged North or a fenland (swamp) settlement in East Anglia, the local people might make their living through pastoral (i.e., sheep or dairy) farming; spinning wool, flax or hemp; quarrying; and, of course, poaching in the king’s woods. Those on the coasts survived on fishing and trade. But most villagers in the southeast relied on arable (crop) farming. Near the village would be a plot of common land, where villagers’ animals could be grazed; and individual strips of land, farmed by each tenant (see plate 1 ). Late medieval farmers and estate managers knew about soil depletion and the need for crop rotation, so these strips would be grouped in three different fields. At any given time, one would hold an autumn crop, such as wheat; a second would hold a spring crop, such as oats or barley; and a third would lie fallow. The big tasks of medieval farming – plowing, sowing, and harvesting – would be organized communally, which means that the whole village, including its women and children, participated. Work lasted from sun-up to sun-down, which meant longer hours in summer, shorter hours in harsher conditions in winter. When not aiding their husbands and fathers in the fields, women cooked, sewed, and fetched water. Older children helped by looking after the family’s smaller children and animals. As we have seen, milk and wool could be sold for a little extra income. Another way to make extra money was to turn one’s dwelling into a “public house,” or “pub,” by brewing ale (traditionally a woman’s role).
    Perhaps in the center of the manor, perhaps on a hill overlooking the village, perhaps many miles away on another of the landlord’s estates, would be his manor house. He might have been a great nobleman or a gentleman. He might have owned and lived on this one estate, or have owned many manors and lived at a great distance. What is certain is that his control of the manor gave him great power over the villagers. First, the landlord owned most of the land in the neighborhood, apart from that of a few small freeholders. This provided him with a vast income from harvesting crops grown upon it, from mining minerals within it, and, above all, from collecting rents from the tenants who inhabited it. The landlord was also likely to own the best – and often the only – mill for grinding grain and oven for baking it. This provided another means to extract money from his tenants. Control of the land also gave him control of the local church, for he probably named the clergyman who preached there, a prerogative known as the right of advowson . He had the further right to call on the services of his tenants in time of war. His local power might lead the king to name him a local sheriff or justice of the peace (JP) . This meant that he was not only the king’s representative to his tenants but their judge and jury for many offenses as well. His local importance might, paradoxically, require him to spend time away from his estates, in London. If he were a peer, he sat in the upper house of Parliament, the House of Lords, and acted as a crucial link between the court and his county. If he were a particularly wealthy gentleman (or the son of a living peer) he might be selected by his fellow landowners to sit in the lower house, the House of Commons. One of the few sets of records allowing us insight into a landowning family during the fifteenth century, The Paston Letters , shows how little time the Paston men actually spent on their estates in the country (in this case, Norfolk), and how much more of it they spent in London. 10
    Admittedly, the same forces which had improved the lot of their tenants were compromising the wealth and power of the landed orders at the end of the Middle Ages. The decline in population had led to reduced demand for the food grown on their land. This produced a fall in