Stuchbury The Lost Village by Patrick Leonard 1994

Written by Patrick Leonard in 1994

Sunday, 4th September 1994. That was the day and the date that I found myself being the guide for 21 people, of a tour around the remains of a village, that ceased to exist as a village about 600 years ago.

It all really started some weeks previous to this, when an arrangement for a group outside meeting, didn’t come about. I must explain here that I am a member of a group called the “Northamptonshire Dowsers”. During the summer period, we like to visit places, where as a group, we can teach and hone our interest and skills. So, one meeting place didn’t come to fruition. However, Mr & Mrs Thame, of Stuchbury Lodge Farm, kindly stepped in and said, come and look at our place. Bags of water issuing out of the ground, remains of an old village near the farm buildings and a couple of fish ponds down the valley. This was all ideal for our groups purposes, so Gwynne Davies, our very able group secretary organised a pre-visit for the two of us, to have a general look round the area and plan for the group afternoon.

We arrived one evening at 6 o-clock, met Mrs Jackie Thame, who walked us around near the farm house to point out the hips and hollows in the nearby field. My spine tingled as we walked. Remains of house platforms, what was left of original paths, roads, little ponds near dry and partially filled in. Extensive ridge and furrow. The further we walked, the more I saw of that ancient village. For forty years, Topographical Archaeology has been one of my interests. Over the years I have learned, and am still learning to read the signs of our ancestors’ daily lives. Where and how they lived, the signs which time has left us. Most of what I saw that evening, I couldn’t explain fully to Jackie and Gwynne, as I needed either further time on site to make sense of it all, or access to any remaining records which may exist. Time that evening did allow us to spend some time on the large fish ponds in the valley bottom and return up the muddy lane, which originally was the main street of the village complex. On either side of that original main street were more remains of ponds, more house platforms, more interlinking paths that had run between original houses, and mud, mud, mud, caused by springs now running free and not being channelled and utilised as they had centuries ago. An all too quick visit was soon over, but I had seen enough to more than whet my appetite. The place was ideal for our group to visit. I had also seen enough that from experience I knew here was a place that had its roots in antiquity of pre BC.

A few days later, a chat with one of our group members, who is also very interested in history, had her researching in to the Northamptonshire Archives, now held at Wootton Hall. My very great thanks must go to MRS Jean Walker, who spent countless hours going through those records. She came up with a wealth of information, plus a Plan, all of which not only, confirmed my reading of the land, but also from the various historical writings, I hope I can put together at least a rough picture of the history of Stuchbury and its type of people that inhabited this piece of England.

STUCHBURY – THE NAME
Throughout history, the name of any place, village or person gets changed in its spelling, as it is often written as it is heard pronounced by other people. Stuchbury is no different. From the records, I find the following spellings and these are in chronological order, the oldest being first.

1. STOTEBERIE       2. STOTESBURY                 3. STOTESBERIE    4. STOBERIAM

5. SCOTEBERIAM   6. STOTYSBERIA                7. STOTESBYR        8. STOTESBURY

9. STUTESBURE     10. STUTTYSBURY            11. STUTTISBURY 12. STUTTESBURY

13. STOTISBURY    14. STOTEYSBERY            15. STOTYSBYRY   16. STUTESBYRY

17. STUTESBURY 18. STOTTESBURYE         19. STUCHBURY

As you can see, there are 19 different spellings of the name of this place. A search of the different spellings go from that first spelling which is from the very old English language to the present day language. It is that first name of STOTESBERIE, which is important, and tells us such a lot about what went on here.

All the others are derivatives of that, being written by those who could write, and writing how they heard it pronounced, or how they thought the spelling should be. Spellings 4. And 5. Having the influence of Norman Latin in their spelling.

That original name was two words, not one. STOTE and BERIE. STOTE comes from the very old English tongue and was used to describe a very young ox or very young cattle. In our present day tongue, we would say CALF. Therefore it describes this village area as being a “calf rearing area”. We do know now that the present area of Northamptonshire has always been mainly grassland. It was not forested as history taught us at school, like the rest of the country. Cattle were driven to the grass prairies of this country, to be fattened before sale. That is why the leather trade of Boot and Shoe came to be prominent here. The county had grass and water in abundance. Water being essential for the cattle when alive, and essential in the tanning of their skins. The Coal Board drilling survey of the early 1980s proved this, when after six years of drilling, they declared that coal resources under the county were not worth bothering with as they were so small, so even millions of years ago, we had very few trees. Anyway, back to STOTE. This word was in use in this part of the country, even before the Roman Invasion of 55 BC, so our village was being used as a calf rearing area at least 2,000 years ago. It was also interesting to find out that STOT of STOTE was Northern Old English in origin and meant the same. At sometime in the local Old English, the E became added on.

The word BERIE, as I have previously said, was again a word from the very Old English, so pre BC again. Its meaning was EGG, but specifically the eggs of fresh water fish, oyster and lobster. The abundance of water and the layout of the village, which I will later describe, confirms what the two words tell us. It was an area for the calving of cattle and the hatching and rearing of fresh water fish and molluscs. A concentrated point on the local landscape for those two specific purposes. This patch of land had everything right for those two purposes, and no doubt, the people with the knowledge to carry out and oversee those processes. As far as I am able to tell, those processes continued right up to the time when the village was done away with.

THE TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
Standing at Stuchbury Lodge Farm and looking south, you can see that there is a valley, which aligns east and west. The village of Stotesberie ran from the farm all the way down the side of the valley to the bottom. The north side of the valley, so it faced south and is the warmest side of this east – west valley. In its layout, it is protected from the north and northeast winds by the high ground at the top of the valley. The land north and northeast of that being of the shape that it would direct those winds up and over this north facing side, therefore much gentler weather was to be found on this north slope, and the bottom of the valley being the warmest spot of it all. It would however drop more snow on this side of the valley in winter time, but being south facing it would be the first snow to melt. Being the warm side, any ponds would be that bit later in freezing over, and that bit earlier in thawing out, so open water and early warmed water is the order of the day, compared to anywhere else in the locality.

The land is described by two local historians, Bridges in the early 1700s and later Baker, as being of the following type: “The land is stiff lias clay at the top of the valley and Boulder clay at the bottom, interspersed by Henmould. This covers an underlying stratum of Oolitic limestone with also a gravelly substratum. Because of this, the land is likely to break out with intermittent springs of water”.

The stiff clay we can readily understand. Lias is a type of blue crumbly limestone which when the land is worked, breaks up and becomes mixed with the clay. Boulder clay, is clay that is water worn with time, so collects into boulder shapes of varying sizes, as opposed to being smooth or flat. Henmould, I found a new word to me, but a few enquiries amongst historical friends soon brought a description. The word, it seems is fairly old English in origin. It means a type of soil that is permanently damp, and when turned by the mouldboard of the plough, stays in the same shape as the plough left it. Wind or weather does not break it down, due to being constantly wet. It has to be worked many times to get a sowable tilth. It is like the substance found at the bottom of the litter which hens have been kept on for a long period of time. Not a bad description over all I suppose.

Oolitic limestone is very granular and crumbly limestone, which is quite porous and breaks up easily and water can break through this quite easily. Obviously that is why the historians say that it is likely for intermittent springs to break out. When the underlying pressure of water builds up, the limestone being granular and crumbly gives way to the pressure of the water.

The gravelly substratum obviously underlies these previous levels, but in places must be near the surface. No doubt, Mr Thame must recognise all these different types as he farms the land. Water as we know from a walk around this old site, is the dominant medium all over the place, and has obviously been so for thousands of years at this area on the local landscape. When water breaks through this limestone, the limestone often collapses downwards, leaving a depression or hollow in the ground, so natural small ponds form.

STOTESBERIE – THE VILLAGE LAYOUT
THE PLAN
It is said, that a picture paints a thousand words. If that were the case, this Plan paints a whole book of words. It is the only one Mrs Walker has been able to find in the archives, so far, and gives very great detail of the clues left from 600 years ago. The records don’t give a date when this Plan was made, but, by the cartographers’ art, I would put it at about 1840. The records do speak of an earlier Plan of 1634, but to date, it has not been found. For reference purposes, I shall use this Plan throughout to refer to.

If you will now look at this Plan, Appendix 1, you will see I have marked in three areas with straight lines. Area No 1 was the controlling area. It is where all manor houses would have been built as that patch of ground is dry, reasonably sheltered from her ground and still in a commanding position to see both down and along the valley in either direction. The original farm buildings would have been here as well, and all was built on a defensive square with the buildings around the outside and a central yard. Most manorial buildings were built in this way, so that should attack come, animals could be driven into the central yard, so they could not be stolen, and all the people could defend the site from the surrounding buildings. Usually, also, there was only one entrance, which was slightly wider than a cart's width. By the position of the road here, that entrance would have been on that east or road side of the complex. The present road shown with dotted lines would not have been there when the village was cleared. It is a modern track, which has come about since. Lazy man always cuts the corners when he is permitted to do so. The important living accommodation would have been on the north side of the square, facing south, so as to catch as much sun as possible. The stabling for the important working animals whether they be ox or later horse, were usually on the west side of the square, as that was next to the warmest point in the winter, being protected from the winter winds. The coldest side, being the east side, was usually used for the storage of grain, hay for immediate use, plus whatever else was required for storage. Hayricks would have been outside this complex, and a little way away, because firstly the fire risk, and secondly the amount of hay required to get through the winter feeding would have been too great an amount to store in the central yard. The Rickyards were usually placed on the west side of the building complex. If you look at the Plan, you will see an area between this No 1 square that is fairly flat, as we know, and before the start of the ridge and furrow. All other ridge and furrow shown on the Plan is brought right up to the boundary lines. Therefore, this would have been the old Rickyard area. Also, the “general garden” for the house would have been here, as it is close to the buildings and fairly protected by them from winter winds. In this case, water was also readily at hand. The south side of the building complex would be utilised for the animal buildings, which in general were only used at night and in bad winter weather. At other times, animals were turned out to graze. Bearing in mind that an acre of land is 4,840 square yards, this No 1 area covered “approximately” 13/4 acres. Really quite a big complex in size.

AREA N2 – THE FISH FARM
This whole area, top to bottom, was the Fish business. The records tell us that f, g and h are the remains of previous ponds. They obviously didn’t take a good look at the area on the left, which they show as marshy, and which at present day is overgrown by scrub. This was another large pond. What looks like a track running down from f to g, then continuing downwards, was in fact a water spillway, taking the overflow from that top pond. This water would also be fed left and right into smaller shallow breeding beds and ponds. Looking at the present field, A, would or could have been an area of strip ponds running across the slope and each about 3 feet wide. The bottom retaining bank is shown here, B, was a fairly large but shallow pond, and a single one, the bottom and side bank being shown on the Plan. The slipover of excess water I have shown with an arrow. C and D were two further ponds with a dividing bank. E, K and L were springs originally, feeding water into the system, water fed into other fish rearing areas as it made its way down the slope of the land. M, N, O and P, being other areas of water catchment of types, sizes and depths according to the requirement.

All water gradually finding its way down to a run off down the side of the road and then down to the streams in the valley bottom.

It would of course take a full excavation of this present field, to work out exactly how the system worked. Also, over the centuries, the layout must have been changed or adapted from time to time, to suit whatever conditions were required.

The two large ponds at the bottom of the valley were used for growing fish to maturity. Although the name BERIE tells us that this site was for the hatching of fish eggs and producing fry, there would have been a need for some mature fish. Firstly, breeding females and males have a limited life span, so a regular turnover of them was required. From these large ponds, the best would have been selected, season by season. The females probably being kept in pond f, and the male kept separately in pond g. This way they came into breeding condition at the same time without seeing each other, as the males would get the scent of the females in the water, as it flowed to them from that central spillway. Far more females would have been kept than males, as no doubt the females were hand stripped of eggs, and the males hand stripped of their semen. This way, one male could fertilise the collection of many females’ eggs. Secondly, a number of mature fish would be required for village and local consumption, of fresh fish. Thirdly, excess of these would have been killed, prepared and the meat preserved for winter use locally or to sell further afield. The general way of preserving could have been air dried in the sun, smoked, or salted. Somewhere in the village complex there would have been facilities for all these preparations.

If you look on the Plan at the two large ponds, Q and j, you will see that the cartographer has not drawn the central stream that runs across the middle of the ponds, correctly. He doesn’t show its run, to or from, the west, so I have put it in with a dotted line at R. This would have been the alignment of the very original stream before the complex was built. The stream running below the ponds was converted to run in its present run, in a banked ditch. The stream then running through the centre of the ponds could be controlled, by being diverted into this other main stream further up the valley. This central stream then served two purposes. Firstly, when these two ponds were emptied, they were drained down the bed of this central stream, the water feeding back into the main stream in the area of the ford, b. Secondly, when empty, this central stream was allowed to flow. All mud in the ponds being pushed into its central channel, the stream flushed it away. These two ponds could have been filled fairly quickly down the channel I have marked Q and with an arrow, as by a gate on the main stream blocking its flow, the full contents of the stream were diverted into them. There would have been further control gates or weirs set in the banks where the central stream runs. At times, when demand required larger numbers of mature fish for meat or whatever, a third pond, R, could be brought into use, as if you will look at the Plan you will see a dam which spans the valley against my straight line at i. The valley could then be flooded along its natural contours without overflowing into the main stream. There would have been a series of gates or weirs, all controllable for height of water in the banks of all the ponds, so that fresh water could be constantly circulated through these ponds. When just two were in use, the fresh water would have been brought in at Q. When all three were in use, then fresh water would have come from R into the next pond over the controlled weir and so on into pond j.

The Area 2, which I have marked with straight lines, covers very roughly about 12 acres. A third of this being 4 acres, accounts for the two large ponds, Q and j, which are about 2 acres each in size. When R was brought into use, this would give about another 3 acres of water. In all, this was quite a large area of water to manage. I have seen fish lakes from the early AD period which cover three or four times this area, but this is the first I have seen that is so complex in such a concentrated area. We have to remember that the main function was to produce fish fry, which would have supplied countless other surrounding villages for their fish lakes and ponds, and they in their turn would grow the fry on to maturity.

It is known that by the early middle ages, 1100s and 1200s, England had a thriving export trade across the Channel and into the Continent, of preserved fish. It was a barter trade in the main, because in return, we took cloth from the spinning areas of the Continent. Therefore, this Fry Farm was not unique. There must have been many similar places around the country, producing eggs, fry and some mature preserved meat. But mainly the fry to supply other fish producers. At the time of its decline, it was a large business. Why it went into decline, I will deal with later.

If I can refer you back to the Plan, and areas M, N, O and P, this side of the complex was, I’m fairly sure, used for the production, breeding and hatching of fresh water shell fish. There were three springs feeding this area, and shellfish like not only fresh water, but also lots of it. Fresh water oysters especially were on the diet of the population for many centuries. They also had the added advantage of live winter storage when mature, as all that was required was cold fresh water. A pond or stream being sufficient as from the start of the cold weather, they would go torpid and hardly feed at all. I haven’t found any individual reference to the export of these, so they were probably kept for home consumption, in the various villages around the country, who in turn supplied the towns with this fresh meat during winter periods, as well as summer.

With the technology we have today, it is well within that knowledge to put this all back into existence quite easily, but at a cost. The prime decider would be to locate and see if those original springs would flow again and supply the water required. Modern farmers are at present being asked to diversify, so here is a chance, should somebody like to try it.

AREA NO.3 – THE VILLAGE
A rough calculation indicates that the village area covered about 12 acres. It may though not all have been used at the same time, but spread over that area over the centuries of its existence. As it is land that breaks out with springs, there must have been places that for time to time were too wet to live on. As you see from the Plan, the business side, the Fish Farm was on the left or west of the main street, and the village was on the east or right of the main street. The main street also being the route to Halse and other villages south, and Sulgrave and other villages north and east. This street being a through route was ideal for customers coming or travellers going through, to buy the produce of the village.

The south or lower end of this area has been least disturbed since the village declined, and here as you walk over, the most complete of the lost house platforms are to be seen and can easily be made out. The points shown on the Plan as S, T and U are very prominent as also are the interlinking pathways. The paths are so designed in their layout on the slope of land to act as water run-offs as well, thus keeping the house platforms dry. S, has a flat area of some 40ft x 60ft which could well have accommodated one large L shaped building, or two smaller buildings, one facing east and one facing south. T and V are both about 25ft x 50ft in flat area, so large enough for only one individual dwelling in each case. U is a long area of approximately 25ft x 100ft. The area W to X has sufficient flat platform areas, that it was probably a row of small dwellings, all facing south. The whole of the area Y is coming up off the slope and onto flatter ground. As you can see on the Plan, and also find on the ground, there are sufficient raised platform areas for this to have been almost a row of living accommodation of various sizes. The north end of the village, shown around d on the Plan, looks quite a jumble on the ground. At the time this Plan was drawn, I think that whatever remained here of the original last remnants of the village had been spoiled by shallow excavations, for probably near surface limestone. There is still the remains, or I should say part remains of a platform at Z. Although not shown on this plan, there are signs of excavation continuing slightly further north. The area e on the Plan shows to what appears to be the remains of surface draining to run water away from the housing area.

As you can appreciate, what can be seen on the surface is not the full story by any means. To get a true and accurate survey of what was in this whole area would take a full excavation by archaeologists with all their back up facilities. Should this ever be carried out, I think we would find that the village was in a way, split into two. On the lower half of the slope would have lived the people who looked after the BERIE side, the fish farm business. The STOTE or cattle people living at the northern end. It would make most sense to put the fish workers at this lower end and opposite their work. The stote people being within sight of the main building or Manor site where their comings and goings could be watched more easily. You have to remember that the cattle covered a far greater acreage of land surrounding this village and the fish complex, and the people of the cattle would spend long hours away from the village. Therefore, the boss would want to make sure when they left and returned. Whereas the workers of the fish were close at hand and could be seen any time of the day.

If you look at the left of the Plan, also bottom left and near bottom right, you will see long dotted lines. These are the ridge and furrow, the arable areas where crops were grown. They do of course extend much further out than this Plan can show.

Bottom left and near bottom right can no longer be seen, due to modern cultivation. The area on the left is still visible and is quite a large area, which I have not measured, so can give no idea of size. When the village was in full use, the area of ridge and furrow must have covered a considerable acreage of crops for people as well as animals and fish. On the ridge and furrow system, it was usual to have a three year cycle. For two years crops were grown and the third year the land was rested, or left fallow. The ridge and furrow near the bottom right, would probably been set aside for the villagers themselves. This, if you like, was their garden area where they grew their own food. Each man was given so many strips according to his station as a foreman got more, and the size of the respective families.

Further out beyond all this would have been cattle pastures. The cattle side of the village complex being a bigger business, in acreage, than the fish business. It was important as in the early name of the village, STOTE is put first, showing its dominance and BERIE is put second, showing that fish were not as important as the cattle. Acreages belonging to the village or Manor I will deal with later.

TYPES OF VILLAGE HOUSING
The earliest type of permanent housing, that I can see possible signs of, would have been the round house, Appendix 2. This was Celtic in origin, but originated in the Middle East and was even known by the Greeks who gave it the name of THOLOS. As the word STOT or STOTE in the name was Northern Old English in origin, then just possibly, the influence of these round houses were from those Northern Celts. The Celts in general surrounded England being in areas of Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Isle of Man and Scotland. These round houses were built in the following way. A hole of about 3ft deep was dug into the ground, the dug out earth being banked around the top of the hole. The diameter of the hole was determined by the size of the building required, the influence being family size. The base of the hole then had a stone floor laid down and a set of steps put in at the entrance. Around the inside of the hole from the floor upward was built a stone wall to the height of about 6ft. Set into this wall and backing soil were stone lined sleeping recesses. Long enough for an adult male to stretch out fully, and in height sufficient to sit up. This gave a good warm individual area and up off the floor. Also it allowed greater floor living area by day. The building was then half way below the natural ground level. The banked soil was then pulled up to the wall and sloped downwards to help any water to run off and keep the building dry. On top of all of this was built a roof. If the hole and subsequent building were small, then the roof would have been constructed of bent saplings, placed like an upside down U. Many of these criss crossing the building. Finally, the roof was then thatched and the thatch being brought down to original ground level so that it also covered the earth banking which had been drawn up around the top 3ft of the stone wall. In the thatch there would have been left a hole at the top to act as a chimney for the smoke to escape, and also to let in a little light. The remaining light coming from the entrance. This building being set half in and half out of the ground, gave very good frost protection in winter, and was cool in the summer. It was easier to keep warm in the winter with a small fire and thick thatched roof. It was so successful in its design that it was used for many, many centuries and was known to be in use into the early middle ages in this country. The larger type of these buildings had a central post for the roof support, with all roof timbers bearing on this.

Because of the design of this building, it had to be built on an area that was dry and the surrounding area could be well drained by ditches which ran around and away from the houses, to take away surface water. At STOTEBERIE, this dry area and probably the very earliest village site would have been the north end of the complex shown on the Plan. The area of Stuchbury Lodge Farm house and buildings and just east of that. Look on the Plan, at just below Z, there is the possible remains of such a round house, through time all collapsed down and inwards. Look just below the d on the Plan and you will see the possible remains of two of these buildings, side by side. Look down the main street to the area of Y, and you can see another double and possibly a third to the right of the lower one. Bearing in mind that to construct one of these buildings, they would have used materials close at hand. In this area there is oolitic limestone which is fairly easy to break and work into shapes to lay floors and build walls. The soil being of clay type is a good water barrier to surround the stonework. The thatch would have been reed, because of the general wet areas; there would have been plenty of reeds, of various types, growing quite naturally. The houses possibly shown on this Plan would have been about 25ft in diameter in the main, and possibly 40ft for the largest, which is the one just below the letter Z. Again, excavations are needed to prove this.

With the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to this country, they brought the idea of an entirely different design for living accommodation. Firstly, they built a slightly raised earth platform above ground level, to ensure they had a dry floor.

On this platform they built a square house in the main, or it could be an oblong one as well. Size again dictated by family size and use of the building. The principle construction of the building was as a CRUCK BEAM, Appendix 3. This Cruck beam is like a very big A in shape. Two of these were required for a basic square building, and more beams could be put up to extend the length to oblong as required. The base of the upright post was set into the ground of the platform, and then the beams joined with cross timbers. The upright walls being filled with wattle and daub frames leaving a hole or doorway for the entrance. Again the roof was thatched with a hole being left for the smoke to get out. They were in design just a single level box room. Window openings with wooden shutters could be incorporated into the walls to let in light is required. In many cases, the people lived at one end of the house, and their animals lived at the other end. The roof space being utilised for storage by hanging items from the roof beams. Again, all local materials were used, and in this area there is stone for the floors, clay for the daub, but more timber is required than the round house, to build the basic structure. On the Plan you will find that most of the present “platforms” to be seen are at the south end of the village complex. Areas S, T, U, V, W to X. Areas in Y. The remains of a platform at Z, and “possible” other areas to the right of d.

No matter how fine the building of the Manor and its buildings were, the workers had to live in very basic conditions. In general, they were slaves to their lords and were kept in their place and kept down to a very lowly station of life.

There could well have been other types of housing on this village site, but I can only describe what appears to have been here from the evidence on the topography. What appear to be two pairs of round houses, at just below d, and at Y, intrigued me as to why they should be in pairs. A little investigation gave the following possible answer. Initially only one was built for one family. At the marriage of the eldest son, a second was built at the side of the first, as it was important that the family carried on. Life spans in those hard days were not very long on average. Forty years about average. A pair of these houses could contain and sustain many generations at the same site, thus ensuring that not only was the family name carried on, but also that continuing generations had somewhere to live.

PEOPLE OF THE VILLAGE
We don’t of course know anything of individual people of this village up to the time it ceased to exist. What is known, is the type of people who lived there, as most villages had people of certain “classes” if we could call them that. STOTEBERIE would have been no different from any of the other surrounding villages. I don’t want to go into social history, as this is an entire subject of its own. Instead, I will just deal with the names of the different classes, which can be found in records. The very lowest of all the village classes was the

SERF             This type of person was entirely and totally tied to the land of the Manor. He was also legally tied by the law of the day. An entire slave in fact. He could be bought and sold, as could his family with him. His status was also inherited by his children.

VILLAIN         This was the next class up but differed very little from the serf. He was not legally tied to the lord, but like a serf, was utterly economically dependent to the manorial lord.

COTTAGER This type of person was slightly better in the social structure. He rented both dwelling house and some land from the lord. According to what he could afford. His “rent” was paid in two ways. Firstly he worked for half the week for the lord. The other half he worked for himself but paid the lord in money or materials. It was an agreement between the manorial lord and the cottager, which was quite flexible, but always in the lord’s favour.

BORDAR       This type of person was to a certain extent, independent. He rented areas of the land that was on the outer limits of the manorial lands. The “border” land. Hence BORDAR. In return, his “rents” were very similar to the cottager, but the cottager rented slightly better and closer land to the manor house.

COTTAR        These people were semi-independent. They earned part of their living in other ways than from within the manor lands. They did rent some “border” lands just as the Bordar’s, but paid a much higher rate for it, whether in labour, cash or materials. This was the penalty for being a semi-free person.

FREEHOLDER        This person was entirely free, legally, from the manorial lord. He had no bondage and was and had social and political liberty. He held under tenure, or rented an area of land with a joint agreement with the lord of the manor, or owned land outright.

There were other people in the village, who were “paid labour”, so got work wherever they could and were probably roving labour. However, these are the general names to be found in the historical records. The general name used for all these classes of village people was PEASANT. Meaning one whom lives on and by the land. The word came from the old French word PAYSANT, so the word or term peasant probably didn’t apply before the Norman Conquest period.

Very little is known of the villager’s lifestyle before the Conquest. Certainly under Roman domination, all would have been more or less slaves. Things improved a little under Anglo-Saxon rule, but the areas held and ruled by the Danish Vikings under the DANEGELD LAW appear to have been very barbaric. Life did improve somewhat under the Normans, as better laws for all were laid down. Although the peasant was tied in many ways to the lord of his manor, his lord was also tied to a certain extent by the laws of the land, to do his best to those who lived under his protection. Annually, the Hundred Court met, where all could attend to discuss problems that had arisen between peasant and peasant, and peasant and lord. Disputes were heard and solutions offered or decisions given. The records tell us that the Hundred Court for the area around STOTESBERIE was “Held on the small prominence in the Gallows Field at Stotesberie”. As the centuries have gone by, all these old classes have gradually died out with people gaining more individual, legal and social freedom.

OWNERS OF STOTEBERIE AND THEIR ACRES
55 BC
The earliest we can find in records, is the Roman period 55 BC to 500 AD. No individual records remain of Stoteberie of this period, but from excavations it is known that many Roman villas have been found around Greatworth, so that must have been the governing centre for this area. One Roman villa was excavated at the vanished village of Halse, just above the present Halse Manor Farm. And one Roman Villa was unearthed just south of the remains of STOTEBERIE village. This is what the records say: -

“ROMAN SETTLEMENT SP 559435 SOUTH OF STUCHBURY, ON BOULDER CLAY AT 168 METERS ABOVE O.D.   A SMALL ROMAN SITE IS RECORDED” (Northants Archael 11   1976) 192, CBA Group 9 Newsletter 6 1976 29.

Obviously and without doubt, the village of STOTEBERIE was already in existence when the Romans came, and why else should they build a settlement just south of the village, but to control the villagers and their lands. Life under the Roman occupation was, as far as is known, slavery by all for the benefit of the Romans. As the Roman Empire fell into its decline, many of the areas of the Empire were gradually taken over.

500-600 AD
Crossing the Channel and conquering here in England were the ANGLES, SAXONS and JUTES. Thus we went into the Anglo-Saxon period. This was the period known as THE DARK AGES, because very little in the way of records have survived from that time. They did have an alphabet which was RUNIC in style. The daily messages and instructions being carved as notches on sticks. Time of course rotted these. (Purely as a matter of interest, right up to the Great Fire of London in 1666, the Exchequer of the government was still keeping some records in this Runic way of marking sticks, all of which were destroyed by the fire.) The Anglo-Saxons ruled here from just after the Roman period, and almost up to the time of the Norman Conquest. That STOTEBERIE did have this Anglo-Saxon rule is I think without doubt. The platforms for the Cruck Beam buildings show us this. There are far too many remaining platforms for it to be otherwise. But, as yet, nothing appertaining to STOTEBERIE has shown in any records in the local archives, for this period.

800 AD
In 793 AD the first Danish Viking raids took place on this country, and gradually they took over quite large areas, especially in the south of England. It was thought in historical terms that the Danes didn’t “settle” in the centre of England. By the time of the Doomsday census in 1086, STOTEBERIE is recorded as “Being held by Osmund the Dane, with two hides of land”. This is the first record we have of a certain owner of STOTEBERIE and a certain area of land. A HIDE of land is 120 acres, so Osmund held 240 acres. Bridges, the Northamptonshire historian of 1720, wrote, “there is a tradition that much of this part of the country suffered from the depredation of the Danes, as they destroyed many places”. One of them at least decided to settle and chose STOTEBERIE and two hides. I wonder if previous of his generations had been settled here?

1066 AD
The Normans came and this village was recorded as I have previously described, by them in 1086. From here on all land was “held” in the King’s name as all land the Normans took over, belonged to him. William, Duke of Normandy’ became King of England. As he was a vassal of the King of France, then he “held” all lands in the name of the King of France. Therefore, “technically” all Norman lands ultimately belonged to France. From 1066 to 1453, the Kings of England had a substantial foothold in France as well. This was often a potential source of friction between English and French Kings.

1086 AD
The Doomsday survey only records that it had been held by Osmund the Dane, but he obviously was quickly removed, as at the survey it was recorded that it had all passed to GHILO, brother of ANSCULF, ancestor of the Pinkneys. The area of STOTEBERIE suddenly increased in size, as also passed to Ghilo was 5 carucates (CARUCATE) of arable land, plus 3 carucates, which were left waste or unused, plus the original two hides. Also he had a wood which was 3 furlongs long and 2 furlongs wide. That increase was quite dramatic as from the original 2 hides of 240 acres, it increased to 940 acres in size. These acres were made up in this way:

                        2 Hides @ 120 acres each                         =          240 acres

                        5 Carucates @ 80 acres each                   =          400 acres

                        3 Carucates Waste @ 80 acres each       =          240 acres

                        Wood, 3 furlongs by 2 furlongs                 =          60 acres

                        TOTAL                                                            =          940 acres

It is interesting to note that a carucate was an area of land that could be ploughed by a team of oxen in one season. In the majority of areas this was 80 acres. In a few areas where large teams of oxen were used, this could increase in acreage up to 12 acres, the same as a Hide, but because it was ploughed land, it was still called a Carucate.

The whole of these 940 acres, at the survey, were valued at 30 shillings yearly, but was quickly raised to 40 shillings.

Ghilo didn’t live at STOTEBERIE, because he rented these 940 acres under joint tenancy to HUGH and LANDRICK. They “held” the land for him. He in turn “held” it for the King.

(Geoff Stutchbury note: In The Doomsday Book England’s Heritage, Then & Now edited by Thomas Hinde published 1996 by Coombe Books ISBN 1-85833-440-3 page 203 it states that

“Stuchbury Stoteberie: Hugh and Landric from Giles brother of Ansculf.”)

Ghilo though did keep one carucate in DEMESNE with two servants. That is, that he kept 80 acres for his own personal use, as arable land, which had two servants to look after it. The two servants were being paid by him in whatever way. It was probably a way of keeping a legal toehold on the whole area.

Before the total completion of the Doomsday survey, all this land of STOTEBERIE, 940 acres, was passed to Simon St Liz, Earl of Huntingdon and Northampton. Presumably still “held” by Hugh and Landrick under a now new owner, who of course “held” it in turn for the King.

1107 AD
The next move of ownership came in 1107 AD when Simon St Liz passed STOTEBERIE and its acres to ST ANDREWS PRIORY OF NORTHAMPTON. In 21 years, STOTEBERIE had grown much in size of acreage and had changed hands quite a number of times, between Osmund the Dane and St Andrews Priory. From this period date of 1107 AD STOTEBERIE would have become a Priory Cell, or outpost if you like. A number of monks would have lived here and run the land on business lines, for the advantage of the Priory. It then appears to have gone into quite a stable period until 1295 AD, a period of 188 years.

1295 AD
In 1295 AD, the Prior of St Andrews, allowed the lands of STUCHBURY to be “held” by a JOHN DE HASTINGS. The records don’t tell us whether the monks, (or brothers) of the Priory were still here, or whether John de Hastings came to live at the Manor. It just tells us he “held” if for St Andrews Priory. At the taxation of 1291, the lands of STOTEBURY and SULGRAVE, both of which the Priory “held”, were valued at 7 Pounds 9 Shillings (7.45 Pounds) per year. There was some dispute over ownership in 1329, when Simon de St Liz the descendant of the original Simon died. On his death, all his lands, which included STOTEBERIE passed to Earl David of Huntingdon, who was his rightful successor. The King, Edward III, adjudged that the lands of STOTEBERIE, with all other lands “held” by St Andrews Priory, should continue to be “held” by them, under the new owner, Earl David. The Priory went on to hold these lands until 1530, when King Henry VIII brought in the Act of Dissolution of Monasteries. In actual fact, he only did away with 30 monasteries out of the many hundreds that were around the country. These thirty were the richest, and least agreeable to change their religion to Henry’s Protestant religion. By removing these thirty biggest and strongest Priories, it caused all the others to change their minds. St Andrews Priory was one of these thirty that became dissolved. Therefore, by 1530, the Priory had “held STOTEBERIE for 423 years.

1530 AD
After the Dissolution, the lands of STUTTYSBURY were granted out in parcels. The Millfield was granted to the Manor of Sulgrave, as Sulgrave had previously been granted to a LAWRENCE WASHINGTON. This field was passed in 1538. Eventually, some of the Washington lands, including the Millfield were sold to PUDSEY JESSON, who in turn eventually sold them to a WILLIAM GOODWIN.

1539 AD
This year, “three closes and fields” were granted, from the remaining lands of STOTEBERIE to ROBERT TIRWHITT and JOHN MOLLE, both of Northampton. Robert released his grant and share of the lands, in just two days, to John. The Molle family then continued to hold these lands until 1647. In that year HOWARD MOLE of Bliborow in Suffolk, the descendant of JOHN MOLLE, sold these lands to a JOHN ro THOMAS CARTWRIGHT of Ayhno, who then eventually sold them to ROBERT HALDANE BRADSHAW, MP for Brackley.

1542/3 AD
In these years the remaining lands of STUTTISBURY were granted to SIR JOHN WILLIAMS and ANTHONY STRINGER. Parts of these lands were then purchased from them by ROBERT PARGITER of Greatworth.

1720 AD
At some time in this year the lands were bought by JUSTICE BLENCOWE, who from him, they were passed to JOHN JACKSON BLENCOWE.

By 1535, whatever remained of the Parish of STUCHBURY was valued at 3 Pounds 6 Shillings and 7 Pence (3.31 Pounds), so it had not only shrunk in size but also in value fro the 1291 valuation.

POPULATION AND RELIGION
A village is a community of people, and like any community; the population is continually varying in size. Only at the times of a census, or particular record in history, do we get some idea of how many people there are at a given moment in time, in that particular area. We can make estimates, which are not accurate, from the size of the land area being used, or at particular periods of taxation. There are always some people on the move, so even in today’s modern technology; we can’t be one hundred percent sure of numbers.

1200 BC
From what I can see of use of the land, early village site, and historical time, I would guess that when STOTEBERIE could be first called a village, there may have been about 25 people. This period would have been pre-Roman, and dated about 1200 BC.

The religion of that period would have been of the Pagan type, when people were more conscious of their links with the land and all that was on it, the seasons, and how it affected their lives, and all that moved around the sky by night and day. They were conservationists, and needed to be to survive.

55 BC
By the time the Romans conquered and settled, with their ROMAN SETTLEMENT SOUTH OF THE VILLAGE, the village and its population had grown large enough, to warrant them doing this. Why should they bother if there was only a few people in STOTEBERIE at the time?    By that time, it was a fairly thriving fish farm and cattle rearing business. Again it had to be a guess as to how many people lived in the village area, but all points to about 45. The Romans were good engineers, hydrologists and farmers, among their varied skills, so we could expect them to improve the fish, cattle and farming of the village, mostly for their own benefit to supply more food for their own people. This would ultimately require more labour for the greater production, so we could expect the village population to increase in size, during their period of occupation.

350 AD
Again, looking at all pointers from this far away in time, I would put the population at 120, which would include all ages from the young to old. This would be about the highest figure at the height of the Roman occupation at “about” this time, for this particular area. During the Roman period of this country, some Christian religion may have come in, but I feel very little overall. The chances of Christianity filtering down to STOTEBERIE are probably quite small. The village people, more than likely were still following many of their Pagan cultures and important occasions, which would help them to bind together and have a separate identity as people. Christianity being in the main amongst the Roman peoples.

400-500 AD
At the demise of the Roman Empire, there was a period of time when there was a vacuum, just the same as the collapse of communism in the Russian Empire recently. The same things would have happened then, here, in many parts of England. That vacuum would have been filled by many local squabbles, as to who would rule what area. STOTEBERIE would not have been free of this, so I would expect that many things quite naturally wound down. There wouldn’t have been the market for their output, and this would have been declining anyway, as the Romans returned to the country of their ancestors’ origin, but not all. The population of the village would have declined, I feel only slightly, as some would have been forced by circumstances to look elsewhere for survival.

500-600 AD
As the Anglo-Saxons gradually took over, then STOTEBERIE levelled off and picked up again. All items for raising fish and cattle were here, still on the land, waiting, to be again put to good use and in work, which required people. The village would still have survived as a community, and eventually it would have a new lord in the Manor, this time, and a new set of rules under the Anglo-Saxon Lordship. Life would have changed for the villagers. In many ways improved, although they probably didn’t think so at the time. New thinking as the Anglo-Saxon’s adapted their knowledge to the limits of seasons and farming. New types of housing came in with the Cruck Beam type of building, which could use land that the old Celtic type couldn’t use. The village side, east of the main street, extended further south, covering a larger acreage overall. The population again increased. Yet again, I have to look back in time, at all the pointers that time has left, and take a calculated guess, and put the size of the population at about 180 in all from young to old, at the height of the Anglo-Saxon rule. What the Anglo-Saxons did bring with them, was Christianity, in a very big way. History has shown that this religion was adapted into the religion of Paganism, as the Christians fitted their important dates and festival occasions, into the important dates and festivals of the Pagan times. Even the Pagan colours for each season were adopted and are still used in the liturgical colours of today. Christianity was slotted in, Paganism was filtered out, but all was a very gradual process, in the main, with some areas being Christianised quicker than others were. Locally, Brixworth being a good example.

700 AD
It is just possible, and I put it no more than a possibility, that an early wooden church could have been built at STOTEBERIE by the 700s or during the 700s AD, as many villages did have such a building. This Anglo-Saxon period lasted from about the 5th or 6th century, until the period of the Norman Conquest in 1066. During the latter period, there was trouble again, when the Danish Vikings settled many parts of the country, and destroyed many other parts. As Bridges the historian tells us that STOTEBERIE, with STEANE and BRACKLEY, was probably pillaged, and no doubt some houses burnt, it is not surprising when we find that reference in the Doomsday survey, which tells us about Osmund the Dane, and says the population with him was probably 10 – 13 people. Circumstances of all sorts depleting the village people.

From the Doomsday survey, under Norman rule, we are told that the village then contained the following: - 2 servants, 5 villains, 3 bordars and 4 tenants. With the Manor lord, this totalled 15 people. Each one was a head of a family, as they didn’t record how many people there were in total. If we assume that depending on living conditions, food availability, income and other things that control a family, that the average family size was 5, then the population was about 75 between young and old. In each family there would be on average, say 3 that were capable of work.

That would put the working population at about 40 to 45. As you can appreciate this is guessing time again, with no full accurate records.

1107 AD
Simon St Liz, founder of St Andrews Priory in 1084 AD, handed STOTEBERIE village, the Manor, and all the lands held by the Manor, over to St Andrews Priory. Quite a crafty move on his part, as the taxes from the lands of STOTEBERIE would now go to the Priory instead of the King.    The crown of course ended up with some of the taxes, as all Priories paid a certain percentage of their income to the government coffers. The other reason for this move of Simon’s was to add to the wealth and power of the Priory. The wealth came from more lands under the Priories control. The power came by spreading Christianity, as it was the usual practice to make these “manors” an outpost of the Priory. All Priories had them, and the usual practice was to put three or four experienced monks on the manor site, to rule the local people, and run the manor as a business in farming, and any other ways of income, for the benefit of the Priory. They also had to produce food for the Priory’s needs. Their other work was also to spread Christianity among the workers and tenants, and also to the surrounding villages and population which didn’t come under the control of the Priory. The power of the Priories and Christianity spread to a point, where ultimately in later centuries, they were a challenge to the Throne, to the point where Kings found great difficulties in running the country without their help and finance.

One of the first jobs the monks of this cell would do was to establish a permanent Christian base here in STOTEBERIE village, and no doubt they, with local labour, built the church. Any previous Anglo-Saxon building would have been destroyed by the Danes, as churches were first on their hit list. As the village had never been a large one, then the monks of this period probably built the first stone church, as it had to draw people from the surrounding area. The church was dedicated to St John, just the same as the church in the Priory in Northampton. I appreciate that no records, to date, say precisely where the church was built. But, in one of the archive records, we get the nearest idea of where it might have been. The records describe the layout of the village, as the Plan shows. It says, “the Church was in the area close to where d is shown on the Plan”. In the period after this year of 1107 AD as you can see on the Plan, the villagers would still have been using that area as the Plan shows possible traces of the old Celtic type round, or at least sunken dwellings. The new Church obviously didn’t disturb these. The Church would have been built on the surface, as well as at a point where it was dry and be firm enough to take the weight of a stone building. That puts us in the area of the present Stuchbury Lodge Farm house and buildings. The house being closer to that point d, than the present buildings of the farm. If, the present house, stands on the site of the original church, it would have made sense to put the church at this point on the land, for the following reasons: -

A.        The site is dry.

B.        The site is right next to the village.

C.        The monks would have their own personal place of worship within the Manor complex.

D.        When built, it was high enough on the topography to be seen from other villages around, so would be a constant reminder to those who could see it to attend church meetings.

E.        It was close enough to the road, which was a through route from Halse to Sulgrave and other villages.

F.         There was good burial land on the north, west and south of this point, which may have also been the burial land from any previous church of the Anglo-Saxon period.

G.        Man, by nature, puts dwellings on the same spot as a previous building, as the remains of a previous building makes good footings for the building that comes after.

Why is there no “present” signs of the Church building, when we still have signs of the buildings of the village which go back to earlier periods than when the Church was built?

AD
By a period of 1189-1200, the Church had been detached from the St Andrews Priory, which means the upkeep of the building was no longer the financial responsibility of the Priory and was the responsibility of the village. The village being small, they probably couldn’t afford its upkeep for long.

1228 AD
In this year there was a rector who took services at the Chapel at STUTESBYRY. That chapel probably being the one in the then, Manor House, which would have been where the monks worshiped separate from the Church. Their original private place of worship.

1258 AD
In this year, ADVOWSON, or right to preach at STOTEYESBERY was offered to the monks of the Priory of Daventry. There is no evidence of these monks ever claiming those rights. Obviously by this time, there were no monks at Stoteberie, of the St Andrews Priory. Therefore, it would seem, that the Church as a building, had a quite short life, of maybe a little more than a century.

All pointers indicate that the Church as a building, didn’t last long, and no doubt was left to go to ruin. If this was the case, then what better place to build a farmhouse, with the remaining footings, and whatever building material was left to be used in the re-construction of the site, to a farm. On my first visit to Mr & Mrs Thame, (prior to any of these records coming into my hands) I was shown the floor slabs used within the present house. By their size and feeling, and what I have seen of that north end of the village, I said to Mrs Thame before I left, that I felt these slabs did not originally come from a previous farm house dairy, but were older than that.

1300 AD
This is our next date in the records, when it is stated that 21 people paid the LAY SUBSIDY. These 21 people would have been of a working and earning age, so obviously there were others who were too young to be classed as for paying.

1315 AD
In this year, the Head Prior of St Andrews Priory was certified as being lord of the Manor. No doubt he was lord of other Manors. It was in a way, a legal move by the Priory, to establish their legal rights above anyone else, to the rightful ownership of this Manor, its village and all the lands belonging to the manorial site.

1377 AD
This year is the next record in the archives. It states that “59 people over the age of 14 paid the Poll Tax”. From what we know of history, it was as unpopular then as a Tax, as the 1980s Poll Tax has been. Of those 59 people, we have no record of how many lived in the village itself, because by this date, the area had become a Parish, so the 59 is recorded for the Parish area. Also how many children there were, under the age of 14, we don’t know again.

1380 AD
This is a year I have had to arrive at, for the clearance of the village, by the Priory of St Andrews. All the records tell us, is that, “some time after 1377, the village was cleared of people”. Please note, only the village.

To arrive at this year of 1380, I must explain a little more from what we know of the history of the period, and why the village was cleared of people. We have to look back in time to 1349. This was the year the PLAGUE started; at least it started in 1348 in the summer of that year at a place called Melcombe Regis. By the end of 1349, it had swept through England, like flames across the stubble; killing large numbers of people everywhere. In 1361 it returned again and was known as the Pestilence of the Children, because it attacked mostly the young of the population. It recurred in 1368 and again in 1375, further depleting the population. From its start, and up to the early 1400s, it had depleted the population from an estimated 4 million, to 21/2 million people. STOTEBERIE obviously didn’t escape this pestilence of Plague, its numbers being reduced but by how many, I don’t know.

Once the Plague had taken its toll, working labour became scarce. No longer, could the lord of the Manor get cheap labour for his lands. The working man realised his value, and put up his wages to his lord, or moved to where he could get better pay. In many cases, the Villain or Serf who was bonded to his lord, and a slave in the eyes of the law, ran away from his manor to seek work that paid good wages, from people who asked no questions, because they were glad to get labour for their lands.

By 1381, there was the “Peasants Revolt”, which took place all over the country. Trouble had been brewing amongst the peasants by the late 1370s.

Also by then, many landowners found that the cost of farming the land was greater than their income from the land. With a depleted population there was less to feed, prices dropped for many items like corn and meat, and labour prices kept rising. Those that could do it did clear their land of people and arable production, and turned their land over to sheep, which produced wool, which was a rising commodity. This way, they made their lands re-profitable. Northamptonshire lost over 200 villages in this way, and STOTEBERIE was one of them. All I can find points to 1380 for STOTEBERIE.

1547 AD
This is the next year of note, from the archives. It states that a THOMAS STUTTESBURY kept 1,000 sheep on Stuchbury Pastures, which is now Stuchbury Hall Farm. 170 years after the clearance of the village people, wool was very profitable to the whole of the country. It was exported in the Staple (wool bale), as well as producing cloth here for export. Wars were financed from the profits of it, as well as the tax upon it. Mrs Thame told me that THOMAS STUTTESBURY came from a family whose name was originally STUTTFIELD. I don’t doubt this for one moment, and I will explain why. Under the bondage system of SERF or VILLANE, when people and whole families were bought or sold, the lord of the Manor often gave them a name. Usually part of the name was the same as the Manor, to show whom these people belonged to. The other part of the name was to show what they did on the Manor. In this case, STUTT shows they belonged to this particular Manor, and FIELD shows their particular work was in the fields of the Manor. They would carry this name until such times as they were either given a different occupation, or were sold, when in either case, their name would be changed. After the clearance of the villages, it is known that in a number of areas, Serfs and Villains, then becoming “freemen” and out of bondage, went on to make a good living by hire of their labour and became, in some cases, tenant farmers. In a few cases, it was known that the former Serfs and Villains ended up renting the whole of the Manor’s lands that their ancestors had been bonded to. Thomas was no doubt, one of those cases. He was now wealthy enough to rent the whole of this manor’s lands. No doubt, with pride, he dropped the FIELD from his name, severing that link of the family’s name with the previous bondage, and added BURY. He was now totally STUTTESBURY and proud of it. He rented ALL the land of the former family’s Lord and Masters. Well, wouldn’t you, if you had been in his position? There is no mention of anyone else living at STUCHBURY in 1547, but Thomas could not have managed a large flock of 1,000 sheep on his own. No doubt, being wealthy enough to rent all these acres, he obviously had paid labour working for him.

1580 AD
This year, 33 years after that 1547 record, the STUTTESBURY family had settled in Buckingham and a JAMES STUCHBURY became a butcher there. Please note that the spelling of the former STUTTES has changed to STUCH. I think that the change was gone by Thomas, during his period on those lands, and the family had the new spelling long enough while they lived on those lands, for the present spelling of STUCHBURY to stay with those lands after the family had left and gone to Buckingham.

1647 AD
In this year, a record tells us that 4 people in Stuchbury paid the HEARTH TAX. This tells us that by this year, there were 4 dwellings and 4 families, all who had come to the lands of Stuchbury since 1580 when the Stuchbury family left, 94 years previously. I cannot find anything in the archives to tell us what happened in those 94 years that brought these 4 families to Stuchbury. We do know that the building of Stuchbury Hall took place around 1630 to 1635, but it probably wasn’t called the HALL then.

1720 AD
A year of this date tells us that there were 4 houses in Stuchbury, but makes no mention of how many there were in population. It says the houses were, Stuchbury MANOR, Stuchbury LODGE, Stuchbury HOUSE (now HALL) and one other house.

1801-1874 AD
From a WHELAN DIRECTORY of this year, the inclusion for Stuchbury gives the following populations at the obvious population census periods.

                                    YEAR                         PEOPLE

30

32

29

21

38

23

34

3 HEADS of HOUSEHOLDS

These three heads of households were: -

NEAL, THOMAS & EDWIN                        Farmers & graziers & threshing machine owners.

WARREN, JOHN PEARSON                    Farmer & grazier coal merchant & cattle dealer.

WRIGHTON, JOHN                                    Yeoman.

Did Thomas and Edwin live at the same farm, I wonder, or did they have a farm each, in which case there would have been 4 households, the 4 mentioned in 1720? John Wrighton, who is classed as a Yeoman, was a small farmer in comparison to the others, as a yeoman means small landowner engaged in agriculture and of the middle class. Therefore, the other three of Thomas and Edwin Neal, and John Warren were obviously considered as large farmers of the upper class, at least in farming circles.

1920 AD
In KELLY’S DIRECTORY, STUCHBURY has an entry for only 2 households. The heads of these being: -

HUMPHREY, WILLIAM T.                          Farmer.

NEWBERRY, JOHN DOMMETT                           Farmer & grazier.

It doesn’t unfortunately tell us which two houses they lived in.

1936 AD
In KELLY’S DIRECTORY, STUCHBURY has again only 2 entries for households: -

BAYLISS, FRED                                          Farmer.

ORMOND, RICHARD ERNEST                            Farmer at Manor Farm.

1940 AD

KELLY’S DIRECTORY again for STUCHBURY gives 4 households, this time the heads being:

BAYLISS, MARGARET (MRS)                              Farmer at Bungalow Farm

CRAWLEY (BROTHERS)                          Farmers at Manor Farm

TIMS, THOMAS TURNER                          Farmer at Hall Farm

YOUNG, FRANK                                         Farmer at Lodge Farm

This is as far as the historical archival records take us with regards to the population of Stuchbury. It will require a search of census records, plus the deeds to each property from that period to bring all this up to date, at 1994.

If I may add in a couple of items of history, worth noting.

Firstly, the Poll Tax which 59 people in Stuchbury paid. This was at a rate of 4 pence per person. Secondly, that the income of the Monasteries was drawn in the main from the rent of lands, and tithes imposed on all their lands. They were very hard hit in their income around the period of the Plague as with lack of labour, many tenanted lands were given up, with no labour to work them. A lot of land lay in waste at this period, so they lost not only rents, but tithes as well, with nobody using the land to pay either. The value of their lands also dropped, so those still being tenanted had their rents reduced. The monasteries, although very rich in most cases, were actually losing money. All the more reason to clear out people in small communities and rent to one or two people at an agreed rent to all parties concerned. By the early 1400s, the tithe payments were increased to the tenants on all the land they had, whether it lay in waste or not. When Henry VIII disposed of those 30 monasteries and split up their lands, he made sure that the tithe payments continued and were paid to the new Protestant order. It was a continuing income for Church and State, even though neither actually owned the lands anymore. The “Church” continued to have a say in the operation of those pre-Protestant lands, and in many cases do so right up to now. Successive Kings and Parliaments being loath to repeal this Act of Henry’s as it still brings in money to Church and Government.

Although the Church building at STOTEBERIE only lasted for a short time, and the chapel within the Manor site (now HALL) for a little longer, there has been a succession of “preachers” responsible for the village and succeeding Parish. Here I include a list from the archives, which starts at 1228 at the Chapel at STUTESBYRY, and ends in the early 1700s.

At the bottom you will note that when this list was drawn up, it states there was a piece of ground called the CHURCH YARD which denotes the site of the original church here. That of course depends on how accurate their information was when they published this sheet of information.

Unfortunately, Northamptonshire Record Office, does not have a Parish Map of “field names”, and they would very much like one, if any reader can supply, so I was unable to check.

STOTESBURY
The parliamentary commissioners in 1655 certified it to be a rectory presentative without cure, church, or chapel, in the patronage of William Jesson, of Coventry, esq.; that Mr. Richard (qu.?) Caresley, of Hardmead in Buckinghamshire, was curate, and that it was worth 20 nobles yearly, so paid by the monastery of St Andrew, Northampton, to whom the lordship belonged, in lieu of all tithes, as a rate and accustomed tithe, and ever since the dissolution the said rate had been paid by the owners of the land and accepted by the incumbent.f This payment still continues.

Rectors.
Adam de Bereweby, chaplain, by the prior and convent of St Andrew’s, Northampton, to the chapel of Stutesbyry, 25 Aug. 1228.

Philip.

Richard de Foxton, subdeacon, 22 Oct. 1281. He was vicar of Doddington about 1270, and rector of Draughton from 1270 to 1278.

Adam de Walton, acolyte, to the church of Stutesbury, 3 Feb. 1312-13.

William de Thrupmundeville, chaplain, 15 Jan. 1314-15. He was vicar of St Gile’s, Northampton in 1313, and rector of Quinton, 1334.

John Pippard, priest, 12 Oct. 1334. He was vicar of Preston Deanry from 1331 to 1335.

John de Elynton, priest, 20 Oct. 1338.

Richard Hauberk, acolyte, by the king, the temporalities of the priory of St Andrew’s being in his hands during the war, 6 May 1349.

Adam Clerk de Asheby, 2 Nov. 1352.

John Fymmer, priest, by prior and convent of St Andrew, 19 Sept. 1361.

Willaim de Bolton, by the king.

John Rose, priest, 28 Nov. 1372.

William Sprout. He was exchanged for the rectory of Boddington, with

Thomas Sarexyn, 20 Oct. 1374

John Symms, priest, by the prior and convent of St Andrew, 13 Oct. 1390.

John Heth, priest, by the king, 8 Nov. 1397. He exchanged for the vicarage of Evenley with

John Baxter, priest, 15 Dec. 1397.

John Lorde, priest, by the prior and convent of St Andrew, 19 Oct. 1410. He exchanged for the rectory of All Saints, Irthlingborough, with

Sir John Raulyns, priest, 1 May 1417.

Sir William Dalton. He exchanged for the rectory of Thorp Mundeville, with

Oliver Green, priest, 11 Jan. 1442-3.

Thomas Blundell, priest, by the bishop of Lincoln, by lapse, 19 Mar. 1473-4, already noticed under Eydon.

Sir Audo Godefray, priest, by the prior and convent of St Andrew, 9 Nov. 1486.

John Gwynneth, acolyte, 9 Dec. 1528.

Laurence Washington, presented by Laurence Washington, senior, and instituted 13 May 1559, on the decease of the last incumbent.

William Barcocke, A.M. instituted to the rectory or free chapel of Stottesburye alias Stuttesburye 5 Sep. 1605, on the presentation of the king by lapse.

John Richardson, A.M. presented by Fulk Buttrie or Botry, esq. And inst. 27 Sept. 1617, on the death of the last incumbent. He was again instituted 11 Mar. 1617-18, on the presentation of the king, by lapse; and a third time inst. 29 July 1618, on the presentation of Fulk Buttrie, esq. vice Laurence Washington, deprived.

George Herford, A.M. presented by the king, p.h.v. and inst. 13 Oct. 1635.

Richard Knightbridge, A.M. presented by Sir John Tirrell, of Springfield, in Essex, and inst. 5 June 1643, on the decease of the last incumbent. There have been no subsequent episcopal institutions, but

Richard Caresley occurs as “curate” in 1655,f and

John Smith in 1721.g Of late years, the benefice has been usually given to the rector of Helmdon, and

Charles Milman Mount, A.M. rector of that parish, is the present incumbent.

The Church was dedicated to St John, and a piece of ground called the church yard, still denotes the site, though it has been long since demolished. Bridges says, ‘the inhabitants usually bury at Gretworth or Sulgrave, or some other neighbouring parish.’g

                                    f Lambeth MSS. Vol 20.      g Br.1. p. 203.

THE DEER PARK
Stuchbury had at some time, a Park for the breeding and raising of deer, as venison was the meat mainly for the lords of the Manor. The records have very little information concerning this Park. It could have been a jointly owned Park between Stuchbury and the now deserted village of Halse as the “possible” location given on the Title Map of Greatworth 1845, indicates a small copse called Park Spinney (SP 554417) and a single field adjoining the spinney on its NE side called The Park. At that time of the Title Map, no trace remained on the ground of its boundaries. The records say there are streams along most of what could have been its boundaries of its circuit, and elsewhere low banks topped with hedges are visible. Ridge and furrow of normal medieval form are traceable within this assumed park area.

Although there are few records of this Deer Park, it certainly existed in the mid 1200s. Whether the Anglo-Saxons laid down this Deer Park, or whether it was Norman in origin, is not known. If I can take a historical guess from what is known of history in general of the two periods, then I would put it at Anglo-Saxon period of the mid to late 700s.

Evidently the RAF photographed this particular area in 1926 and the following reference is given in the records:                       (RAF – VAP – CPE / UR / 1926 1215 – 6)

PATRICK LEONARD (SENIOR)

Moulton 1994