Certificate in Local History
Essay by Peter Brown FCCA,BSc(Hons),MSPI
Acomb Grange - An Augustinian Grange in the County_of
Acomb Grange -
Introduction - the problems - the
questions
In
the winning essay of the 1991 Sheldon Memorial Trust Essay Competition,
Jennifer Kaner traced the history and ownership of Acomb Grange from the 12th
Century to the present day.(l)
In
that essay she raised many questions that would require further research. There
were also areas of her work where she could not progress because her physical
access to the estate was limited. These are restrictions that do not apply to
the present writer,who is the proprietor of Acomb Grange.
She
cited evidence which seemed to suggest that St Leonard's Hospital did not enjoy
any income from the Grange (24) and suggested,with some uncertainty, that
perhaps all the produce went direct to the Hospital.This problem relates
directly to a problem identified by Cullum at St Leonard's (25)
She
also was uncertain as to why substantial sums were paid in the 14th century
accounts to Hugh de Helmsley and Richard de Foxholes.In 1375 to 1379 she
identifies' a problem of accounting'in respect of payments to and from John
Day,and refers to the substantial expenditure on wages in relation to woodland
throughout the 14th and 15th century. A consideration of customs and practices
on Granges in the demesne of Augustinian canons might shed light on these
issues.
The
physical history of the present building was a puzzle (3) .It was known that
the celebrated architect John Etty had drawn up plans for a new building on the
site,but it was not known whether the present building was built to Etty's
design. (3). It was said that an internal examination of the building might
help to solve the puzzle.
There
was evidence of large scale rebuilding and some considerable expense in the
period 1809-1813,and the question was raised whether an extension had been
built at this time.(4).
Kaner's
consideration of the ownership of Acomb Grange covers the period from its
foundation by Charter between 1123 and 1133 (2) and ends in 1922,but is silent
about subsequent ownership.lndeed,there is a reference to rents for Acomb not
being mentioned after 1923.(5)
This
essay, as one of its two prime objectives, attempts to explore some of these
questions and to postulate possible answers
SO,for
example, a physical examination has now been carried out and evidence obtained
which enables a tentative chronology to be determined,and which helps to
resolve the question of John Etty's design.
The
evidence for building works in the period 1809-1813 is considered and the
possible works identified,together with other building projects at other
periods not identified in the Sheldon essay.
The
record of ownership will be brought up to 1995,a period of over 860 years. The
reason that rents ceased to show in the accounts of the Marwoods will be
established, but a further question will be raised - why did rents cease in
1923 and not 1919 ?
As
a further prime objective, this essay attempts to put the recent history of
Acomb Grange in its local context which in local oral tradition is known as the
oldest occupied dwelling in the parish of Rufforth.There is no direct evidence for
this oral .tradition but given the known history of Acomb Grange it is
certainly not improbable.
An
attempt will also be made to explore the' occupation and use of Acomb Grange in
recent times,as compared with its ownership, and to see how this might contrast
with similar properties in the same locality, by the use of census and other
evidence.An attempt will also be made to trace the changes in the social and
economic characters of Acomb Grange and similar properties over time.
Sources in the context of the problems
and questions to be explored
The
different nature of the problems to be investigated illuminated by differing
classes of source data.
can
be
These
are
*
The building itself
*
A local oral tradition
*
Local historical publications and newspaper articles
*
Census Data
Less
specific sources include documents relating to
In
this context it should be noted that Acomb Grange as an identifiable separate
holding,amounting in 1293 to some 323 acres plus two areas of woodland, (24),is
only a part of a much larger holding of St Leonard's in the area covering parts
of Rufforth and Askham,described as 'in the Liberty of St Leonard's'(26).These
holdings would also be 'Granges' in the strict technical sense as defined by
Bishop (18).The differing uses of the word 'Grange' as a geographical
description in the parish of Rufforth is one that confuses the user of historical
sources,as is described more fully below. Even to this day,the postman
regularly misdelivers the Royal Mail. In May 1995, a driver delivering
materials to 'The Grange' was perplexed to discover he was five miles from his
destination.
This
confusion should always be remembered when interpreting the historical
sources,and is very evident in the census data,even when the enumerator was a
resident of the parish as appeared to be the case in all but the 1841 census.
The
basic source for the structure and chronology of the building is the building
itself.This consists of the physical structure,its interrelationships and its
dimensions. It also consists of documentary evidence found within the building
structure.
During
the course of recent refurbishment it has been necessary to extensively survey
and explore the structure. Detailed plans have been drawn up ,and the buildin~
has been examined by a number of architectural specialists. The conclusions
based on these examinations are of the nature of opinions ,but the conclusions
arrived at tend to clarify some of the issues raised by Kaner,and have enabled
a building chronology to be suggested,with tentative explanations for the
purpose of new building works at the particular time .It is however of the
nature of architectural dissection of a building that alternative explanations
can often be postulated.
At
each stage of this examination a detailed photographic record has been
taken,and this process is still continuing at the time of writing.
In
the course of refurbishment work specific evidence has come to light as a
result of building techniques used that has enabled very specific conclusions
to be arrived at with some certainty.
For
example,certain parts of the building are built with an early cavity wall
system in that they are not physically bonded to the parts of the building to
which they appear to be attached. They are to all intents and purposes free
standing buildings.
Brickwork
techniques and materials used enable chronology to be estimated,and the
technique of saving on mortar by plugging gaps with newspaper as a bonding
agent has enabled relatively large quantities of newspapers to be recovered
from internal parts of the building which has enabled dates to be determined
'terminus ante quem'
One
of these items of evidence is supported by local oral tradition but is viewed
with very healthy scepticism by University specialists.
It
is apparently accepted by present day local buiiders that in the rural areas
around
The
sources for the building within its local context consist partly of a very
strong local oral tradition,of which the above is part,but that has many of the
inherent difficulties of such traditions,and indeed to some extent some of the
evidence so gleaned can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
For
example,one lady in her eighties has asserted that as a little girl the present
Acomb Grange was the house in which her grandfather lived,and she has described
with some precision the nature of events and the type of farming
undertaken.However,the census data up to 1891 and electoral roll data in the
twentieth century show that her grandfather actually lived in what is now known
as Rufforth Grange.That is not,of course,to say that she did not regularly
visit Acomb Grange,and that her childhood memories are confused.Her memories
might be evidence for a very interactive and social community. (14)
The
sources also consist of local historical publications and newspaper articles
over a period.However,some of the newspaper articles may need to be treated
with a little scepticism as they seem to evoke a very romantic view that may
not accord with reality.
For
example the Yorkshire Gazette of
However,it
may be that the sophisticated modern reader is too ready to read such reports
with cynicism, for there are sources which convey a similar picture written by
a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society,and such commentaries deserve respect
unless specific evidence to rebut them can be forthcoming. (16), (17).
A
further source which not only assists with this aspect but also sheds light on
the tenure of the property is the census data from 1841 to 1891.However, this
data itself raises a number of problems. Paradoxically the nature of these
problems is such that it might help an understanding of Acomb Grange within its
local context and how that context might have appeared to local people in the
19th century.
At
first sight the census data is confusing,and the question is raised 'did the
enumerator really understand what he was recording'. However, on closer
examination it is apparent that in most cases the enumerator was actually a
resident recorded by the census. This presumably reflects a degree of local
knowledge,so some other explanation for the apparent confusing data should be
sought.
A
good exa~ple of the confusion can be. found. in the 1841. census. In that
census virtually every resident is recorded as living at 'The Grange'
If
'The Grange' is taken to mean the present Acomb Grange,then there must have
been a substantial village which has disappeared since 1841.It is clear that
'The Grange' means something quite different. What that difference was,and what
it means in the context of what we describe as Acomb Grange helps us to arrive
at an understanding of the problems under investigation and also sheds light on
a number of disparate other factors ranging from the confusion of the lady in
her eighties referred to above,to the present day difficulties of the GPO in
correctly delivering mail with the word 'Grange' in the address.
An
insight into the sources of this apparent confusion can be obtained from a
reading of more general sources,such as 'Monastic Granges in
Findings
The Augustinian Grange
Granges
were a prevalant form of ecclesiastical holding relatively common in the North
of England. (20).It has been estimated that there were perhaps rather less than
200 such granges in
A
grange was originally a granary,but in time came to be the term for the
landholding,usually an arable farm, from which produce was derived. (18),and
was extended to include any large outlying monastic farm.If St Leonard's
Hospital is to be identified with the pre conquest foundation of St Peter's as
Cullum suggests, (21)' and (22),then Acomb Grange falls outside the normal
pattern for granges identified by Bishop (l8).He states that granges were
predominantly confined to the estates of monasteries founded after the conquest
and belonging to newly founded religious orders. He also quotes authorities
showing a similar pattern in
Bishop
emphasises that Granges are to be quite clearly distinguished from the home
farms of the monasteries themselves,and he also sets out the very clear
distinction between manorial holdings and granges. (27)
In
the case of Augustinian canons,as with St Leonard's,the acquisition of the land
was usually preceded by the acquisition of the patronage of the vicarage ,and
the right to tithes and the consequent need to establish a tithe barn,and in
early usage a 'grangia' was in fact a form of tithe barn.
It
is interesting to note that Acomb Grange,at first sight, appears not to follow
this pattern,as it was in 1218,almost a hundred years after the foundation of
the grange ,that the canons of St Leonard's obtained rights over the church of
Rufforth.(33).
Acomb
Grange does,however, appear to conform to the norm of the 13th Century in that
it appears to have been directly held with the produce going to the hospital
(24),with no direct evidence of income.This fits the pattern quoted by Bishop
in which he says 'they appear in every case to have b&en created and,for a
time,held in demesne by the monasteries which owned them'.Only later just prior
to the reformation did they appear to be let out - again a pattern repeated at
Acomb Grange (18)(28).
This
would seem to support Kaner's hesitant conclusion that perhaps all the produce
went direct to the Hospital.It perhaps also explains Cullum's surprise at the
low per capita cost of food for the residents of St Leonard's,which she
tentatively explained as being due 'to economies of scale'(25)
Bishop
surveys in some depth and beyond the remit of this essay a number of subjects
relating to Granges - their financing,administration,and the logistics of
distribution of produce.
Both
Bishop's description, and the position apparently obtaining at Acomb Grange is
very broadly in line with the system of estate management described in some
detail by Kershaw in relation to another Augustinian House,Bolton Priory. (45)
Bishop
also considers the role of Granges in the distribution of land holdings, and
the effect on tenemental organisation and agrarian routine on the lay
population. Both Kershaw and Bishop emphasise the different practices of the
Augustinians when compared to the Cistercians - in that the Cistercians
'cleansed' their holdings of the local people, whereas the Augustinians and
Gilbertines tended to act in a way that created a community not unlike lay
vills.
This
latter point is of relevance to this essay because it is believed that not only
did this directly affect the history of Acomb Grange and the village of Rufforth
immediately after the Reformation, but that ghosts and echoes are to be found
in the local traditions and customs, taking concrete form in some of the
responses to the Census enquiries in the 19th Century, and living on to this
day in the 'sense of place' of the local community.
The
fact that the granges of the Rufforth parish were in the ownership of
Augustinian canons has had an impact on the subsequent development of the area,
because it was common for Augustinian or Gilbertine granges to encompass
substantially the whole of of a viII. Thus as Bishop cites, in Marton only
eleven scattered acres out of a large estate were not embodied in the grange of
Guisborough (31),and of the eleven granges of Malton ,six encompassed no local
tenamented land. (32)
One
of the most significant effects of grange lands falling in to private hands
after the reformation was that unlike neighbouring lay agricultural
holdings,they were not held in widely distributed strips in the open fields.On
the contrary ,they would be consolidated long before the formal enclosures,and
to a much greater extent than even manorial demesne lands. (29). Kaner quotes
several reference to 'closes' implying enclosed land. This again corresponds to
the practice at Bolton Priory (45)
It
is interesting to note that on the enclosure map for Rufforth in 1806,the
Grange is actually marked as adjacent to the land to be enclosed, and no
enclosure award is made in relation to it. This is despite the very clear
definition of the boundary in the Enclosure Act .This seems to suggest the land
was already clearly enclosed.
The
predominance of Augustinian granges in the Rufforth area would also have meant
a significantly different form of landholdings and feudal duties immediately
prior to the dissolution than would have obtained in neighbouring parts of the
County and Ainsty of York.
The
orders of canons regular tended not to have direct agricultural experience or
tradition (34).Their practice was to employ 'mercenarii' or 'servientes' from
among the toftholding tenants for monetary hire - a practice quite distinct
from the usual system of service.
This
monetary expense is often the most significant item of expense in grange
accounts of the Augustinians and Gilbertines (35) .This is quite distinct from
the practice of the Cistercians where granges were occupied and worked by lay
brethren, although Kershaw (45) does say that 'on occasion Lay brothers
supervised the administration of a group of demesnes' in the Augustinian priory
of Bolton.
That
this system of paid labour seemed to be the practice at Acomb Grange might be
confirmed by the problems of accounting, and expenditures of sums of money
identified by Kaner and referred to in the opening part of this essay.
The
study of the way these practices differed from non grangelands would itself
merit detailed research.For the purposes of this essay,it is sufficient to say
that both prior to and subsequent to the dissolution of the monasteries , both
the system of landholding and the agricultural practices deriving therefrom had
a cultural and social effect that differentiated grange lands from surrounding
areas.
The
sense of community, the legal status .of the individual ,his identification
with his village or town and his relationship with others in society are likely
to have been substantially different in the two neighbouring parishes of Acomb
and Rufforth.
Subsequent
evidence will suggest that this differentiation was still a powerful cultural
force as late as the 19th century,and persists to this day.
It
is interesting to note that the community with which Acomb Grange was most
closely identified was very much Rufforth.For example,despite being adjacent to
Acomb,there is in the whole of the Acomb Parish registers apparently only one
reference to an inhabitant of Acomb Grange. (40).In his will,Francis
Gale'desired to be buried in All Saints Church Rufforth' (died
That
this cultural force still subsisted can be seen from the Census returns of
1841,1851,1861,1871,1881 and 1891.However,the 1841 census return is an object
lesson in not accepting totally the accuracy of any document,as it asserts
Rufforth to be in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
The
stability of the community is shown in the 1841 Census. Even as late as
this,there was in the whole Parish only one person ,a child of 11,not born in
The
1841 Census shows five separate holdings describing themselves as the Grange,
each of them consisting of several households. Indeed, the whole population of
Rufforth appear to live on a grange property,with the exception of the
mysterious Hind House,identified by Kaner and which appears on the Census .One
of these Granges,occupied by John Jolley,is known to be Acomb Grange from
subsequent census data,but the identification of the others on the parish map
is difficult.
Almost
300 years after the dissolution,the concept of the Grange as a unit is still
very strong.
There
seems to be a pattern at each Grange property of a main property,clearly the
household of the upper social tier,employing both male and female servants ,
with other adjacent properties where the residents are agricultural labourers.
This is a pattern which continues into subsequent censi.
It
is very interesting to note that in subsequent censi,the main properties show a
stability in that there is very little turnover in population from census to
census,and what there is appears substantially to be by transmission down the
generations.By contrast, there is little consistency in the surnames in the
subsidiary properties from one census to another,although it is possible to
trace individuals moving from a property in one grange to another between the
census.
John
Jolley's Grange, Acomb Grange,was the largest grange at 420 acres employing 8
agricultural labourers in 1851,compared to the second largest Grange that of
William Midgley with 200 acres, employing 3.
By
the time of the 1861 census,the confused nomenclature appears to be becoming a
little clearer. There were now a number of households that were not describing
themselves as being on a Grange.Acomb Grange,now at 480 acres employing 8
labourers,2 boys and 2 women,and occupied by John Ord Jolley,is now
specifically named as such, yet the other four Granges are still all described
as Rufforth Grange.All of the Granges have increased in size, with the
exception of Joseph Ward's which has lost 7 acres.
The
social differentiation is also now accelerating. In addition to his 8
labourers, John Ord Jolley now has a dairy maid and a house maid.
Then
in 1871,confusion reigns again in the nomenclature.John Smith now occupies what
is clearly Acomb Grange,and is described as such under his entry in 1881 and
1891,but is described here as Rufforth Grange.What was previously and
subsequently described as Rufforth Grange occupied by Joseph Ward is, in
1871,described as Acomb Grange. There are two other Rufforth Granges.Yet the
enumerator was the same individual as in 1861,and he is the village grocer. The
enumerator in 1881 and 1891 was a different individual,and appears to have been
the schoolmaster.
The
census , incidentally, corroborates Kaner's finding that the Jolley's were in
occupation up to at least 1865.
So
we have local men describing the same properties with different names on
different occasions.Further,in 1891, Samuel Bean appears at Rufforth
Grange,together with his son Lawrence,at a property which is quite clearly not
Acomb Grange.Yet this is the Mr Bean whose grandaughter asserts that when she
was a child visited what we know to be Acomb Grange.
It
is interesting to note how stable and insular this community still was in
1891.0nly 7 individuals in the entire village were born outside Yorkshire.
So,
from the census data emerges a picture of stability,of limited economic growth,
if the size of farms is a measure,of progression up the social scale of the
main grange properties, and of a distinct but perhaps lessening of a sense of
'Grangeness'.As we will see later, this process culminat.ed in 1923 with the
acquisition of the freehold by the tenant of Acomb Grange,who by then was a Mr
Holmes.
Is
this corroborated by other sources?
Partly
and partly not .Camidge at page 22 appears to contradict the picture of
economic growth (46) and stability.However,he is writing some 13 years after
the last census reviewed and Kaner does comment that by 1922 the properties
were running at a loss.Kaner states that in 1903,Acomb Grange was one of the
Marwood's more productive properties in terms of rent,so if there were
pressures on tenant farmers at that time,they were not reflected in the rents
payable.Perhaps it was a bouyant rent level that created the pressures.
His
reference to Mr Marwood's property not being tenanted is puzzling.
The
Yorkshire Gazette in 1907 (47) portrays a picture of economic
difficulty,combined with a benign paternalism of local worthies
The Building
After
the dissolution, the building at Acomb Grange passed through several hands as
fully described by Kaner. There have perhaps been several buildings on the
site,and only a full archaeological survey would elicit the full story.
However,following
the physical survey of the building in 1995 (41) a number of facts have been
established and these have a direct bearing on some of the questions raised by
Kaner.
With
the exception of a single storey extension to the house dated to about the
1850s,and a single storey extension to the cottage of a similar date every wall
of the house and the cottage is built upon very substantial stone
footings.These are either the lower remaining courses of a substantial stone
building,or more likely the stone courses upon which a timber framed building
had been built in earlier times.To the rear of this building (and under the
present utility room) are the remains of a stone pavement or courtyard,and in
the garden to the north are traces of a cobbled roadway. The stonework is of an
extremely high standard and not what would normally be expected in a rural
vernacular building.
Excluding
the later extensions,the rooms of the cottage and the house are a mirror image
of each other. They are effectively built to the same plan ,with precisely the
same dimensions.Those dimensions correspond very closely to the dimensions of
the design of a house at Acomb Grange by John Etty in 1694 (42),except that the
back kitchen as shown on his plan no longer exists.
However
to the rear of the cottage,in the extension built in the 1850s there are traces
of earlier building works , and perhaps the back kitchen was built but later
absorbed into the extension. In the corresponding location on the house ( in
mirror image terms) there is a much larger room than the back kitchen and a new
kitchen was built.On a number of grounds,both stylistic, and internal evidence
this much larger rear extension appears to have been built in the period 1810
to 1815.Given Kaner's reference to a sale plan in 1810 showing the house to
have substantially its present plan,then perhaps this extension was built in
181D,possibly in anticipation of the sale. This building work would correspond
very closely to the expense on building works identified by Kaner in 1809 to
1813,which she describes as being too much for simple repairs, 'almost
amounting to a rebuild' (44)
There
is some evidence of there having been a basement to the front of the cottage.
It would appear that the internal roof structure of the cottage is much older
than the building itself. These perhaps are 'the timbers that were worth
saving' referred to in Etty's letter quoted by Kaner.(43).It would also appear
that the roof structure of the house is of about the same age as the house ie
late 17th Century.
The
external appearance of the house and cottage are deceptive.Kaner refers to the
detailing on the cottage and suggests that this was perhaps Etty's house. At
first glance,it would appear that the house is much later than the cottage, but
this, is perhaps due to 'modernisation' in the Georgian period,and
'Georgianisation' in the modern period.Kaner suggests as an alternative that
the house was built to Etty's plan and the smaller built to match with farmer
and gentry tenant living side by side.
Based
on the evidence a tentative chronological plan has been drawn (41) and certain
conclusions can be drawn from this.
Ownership and tenure
In
Kaner's Sheldon Essay (1),many of the owners of the Acomb Grange Estate have
been identified up to 1923.In addition many of the tenants and farmers have
been identified ,although there is a difficulty in distinguishing tenants from
mortgagors.There is also a difficulty with the census information as discussed
in the section on sources which creates some degree of uncertainty as to
specifically which property is being described in the sources.
It
is remarkable to note that the freehold ownership of the property has been in
the hands of only four families in the period 1663 to 1995 and only five
families since the reign of James 1st ,when the Gale family acquired the
freehold. The Gale family previously held the lease created shortly after the
dissolution of the monasteries,when the property passed out of the hands of St
Leonard's Hospital.Prior to that the property had been in the ownership of the
hospital since a grant of two carucates of land in Acomb to the Hospital of St
Peter (as it was then known )(12) by Henry 1st in a charter dated between 1123
and 1133.There will be few properties in private residential ownership which
can trace the freehold back to such an early date and which have passed through
so few hands in the intervening period.
It
is stated that rents for Acomb Grange ceased in 1923, (13) but this appears to
contradict documents registered at the West Riding Deeds Registry. (6) By a
conveyance dated
Sir
William Marwood is described in the conveyance as the second son of George
Marwood who died on 7th April 1882,and tenant for life of the estates.The
trustees in the conveyance agree to the extinguishment of the life interest,and
the property is sold to Albert Holmes,who is described as a farmer of Acomb
Grange for the sum of gOOO.Clearly ,the financial pressures identified in the
Sheldon essay have led to the Marwoods being forced to sell to their sitting
tenant Mr Holmes.
The
property is described as being 453 acres,one rood and thirty six perches,and a
detailed plan is attached,together with a schedule breaking down the estate
over arable,grass,road,orchards,ponds buildings and so on.Approximately 13
acres are shown as grass having been 'ploughed out 1918 by order'- perhaps an
early form of set aside? .25 acres are shown as 'rough - formerly Grange
Wood'.Perhaps this corresponds to the ancient woodland described in the Sheldon
Essay.
The
size of the estate corresponds very closely to the estate tenanted by John
Jolly in the 1851 census (10) ,comprising 420 acres,and described in the census
as 'Rufforth Grange' but who can be identified as the tenant of . Acomb Grange.
(9) ,and corresI)Qnd's to subsequent census data .It is also apparent how
little the overall size of the Acomb Grange farm estate, (as distinct from the
entire estate of St Leonard's) has changed since the survey carried out in 1287
(24).St Leonard's was a'house of Augustinian canons, and Bishop in his survey
of Monastic Chartularies and Inquests asserts that the average size of an
Augustinian grange was about 200 acres (30)
Mr
Alfred Holmes,the son of the former tenant become freeholder, is, it is
understood, at the time of writing still alive,in his 90s and living in
Poppleton.
Mr
Alfred Holmes is last shown on the electoral roll for Acomb Grange in October
1981 (7) and his interest was sold to Andrew Sykes who first appears on the
roll in October 1982 (8)
In
January 1995 ,Andrew Sykes sold the farmhouse,cottage,stables and six acres to
Peter and Carol Ann Brown,and retained the remaining farm land for his own
agricultural use. The barn was sold in May 1995 for conversion to a dwelling.
The effect of these transactions is that Acomb Grange is now within the
smallest boundaries it has enjoyed since the 12th century.
The
six acres presently owned by Peter and Carol Brown are given over largely to
sheep pasture ,but may soon be developed for environmentally friendly willow
production for a proposed wood burning power station to be built, in the locality.
Conclusions and suggested further
enquiries
It
has been noted that in some respects ,Acomb Grange appears not to fit the
pattern identified by Bishop and others.
Perhaps
the explanation is that Acomb Grange was not attached to Rufforth proper until
a later date. It is described as being in the liberty of St Leonard's in Acomb
in 1307. (37). Kaner states that it became a part of Rufforth parish 'at some
date before 1520' but does not give a source. It also seems that the area
adjacent to Acomb Grange known as Chapel Fields( originally Chapel Flatts) and
now the site of a housing estate appears to be of very ancient origin.
It
might be a useful source of further enquiry to discover what gave rise to the
name Chapel Fields.Does it derive from the fact that the land was simply in the
ownership of the Church in the guise of the Minster Treasurer,as i~ appears to
have been in the reign of Henry II (38)? Or was it rather that there had been'
at some time a physical chapel on the site? If so was this an Augustinian one
that had tithes connected to it - so giving rise to Acomb Grange.
There
is a tantalising snippet in an undated terrier in the Acomb Parish Register
which refers to Grange Flats in a context which seems to suggest it was within
the curtilage of Chapel Fields. (39) there is clearly scope for_some_further
research.
It
has been asserted,but not yet verified,to the writer that many of the Granges
attached to
Aside
from the apparent atypical nature of its foundation,Acomb Grange seems in many
respects to have been managed and accounted for in a similar manner to other
Granges of canons regular, as described by Kershaw and Bishop.It seems to have
been held in demesne in its early period with increasing periods of being let.
It was enclosed at an early stage. It would seem that some of these practices
might help to explain some of the questions raised by Cullum and Kaner.
The
practices of estate management are thought, in common with similar holdings by
Augustinians and Gilbertines to have helped to create a sense of place within
the local community that has,in part, persisted to this day. It has certainly
left within the local conciousness a sense of the concept of a Grange as a
working economic and social entity. This manifested itself in the census
returns of the 19th Century,and is still a part of present day life in the
area. It has also led to some of the confusion about what is, and where is The
Grange
So
far as the House itself is concerned,the tentative chronology would suggest
that both of Kaner's alternative suggestions concerning the Etty house are in
fact true to a certain extent.
The
tentative chronology suggests the following sequence of events.
It
would appear that in about 1694 ,two identical buildings ,each substantially to
Etty's plan were built,as mirror images of each other.One of them,the present
cottage, reused roof timbers from an earlier building.
In
about 1810,the right hand of the pair when viewed from the front had a two
floor extension built to the rear, effectively obliterating the back kitchen of
the original building and creating a new kitchen. At the same time the exterior
of the house was remodelled in a Georgian style.
In
about 1850, a single storey rather poorly built extension was added to the
cottage eliminating the original back kitchen of Etty's design. At about the
same time a single storey rear extension was added to the house.
In
the 1970s or 1980s the house was to some extent 'Georgianised'
Within
the 20th century the estate has been broken up piecemeal and the central farm
buildings are now going out of full time agricultural use, to be used for
residential purposes by professional people, with only limited agriculturai
activities.
This
is a process that is mirrored in other similar 'grange' properties. The
property presently known as Rufforth Grange,originally a part of Acomb. Grange
itself,is a residential property occupied by a Chartered Surveyor and a doctor.
The Grange in Hessay is ,in mid 1995,being marketed as a professional
residence.A number of other granges identified in the census data are also
becoming commuter residences for professional people who are maintaining the
agricultural character of their particular grange to a greater or lesser
extent.In Estate Agent parlance this is the process known as 'gentrification'
However
this process is not new.From the time John Jolley took up his tenancy some time
before 1810,and was possibly responsible for the extension works, there is a
picture of upwards social mobility.
From
working tenant farmer,to an employer of men, to employing house maids and the
resources to exapnd and develop the farm, the progress is slow but sure until
the freehold becomes merged with the leasehold in 1922.
The
history of Acomb Grange,its relationship to the broader history of mediavel
Any
building that has links with WaIter de Langton,Alderman Snawsell,the Gales,the
Methams and the Thwings,the Pilgrimage of Grace,and the largest
Footnotes
Abbreviation:
AG
=.J Kaner 'Acomb Grange',York Historian ,Vol 10 1992
Cullum
= P.H Cullum,'Cremetts and Corrodies : Care of the poor and sick at St
Leonard's Hospital,York in the Middle Ages',University of York Borthwick Paper
no 79 ,(1991)
Bishop
= T A M Bishop 'Monastic Granges in
1.AG
,p2
'Acomb
Grange,as a distinct and separate estate since the 12th Century, deserves to
'have its history recorded.It lies on the immediate outskirts of modern York,in
the green belt,only 2.5 miles from York Minster,and yet it has remained an
entity for 800 years'
2.
W Farrar, 'Early
3.
AG p14,15 -There is a full description of Etty's structure and his drawings are
reproduced on page 13, dated 1694 and reproduced from NYCRO(ZDU) mic 1294 fr
2255
4.
AG p15 -There is a full description of the type and costs of building materials
used
5.
AG p16
'The
estates were entailed but by 1922 were running at a loss and more and more land
was being sold.Rents for Acomb are not mentioned after 1923'
6.
West Riding Registry of Deeds Volume 79 Page 697 No 265,1st November
1919 - Conveyance of property at Acomb Grange
7.
Electoral Roll for Harrogate Borough Council qualifying date
8.
Electoral Roll for Harrogate Borough Council qualifying date
9.
AG page 15
10.
Public Records Office 1851 Census - Parish of Rufforth
11.
W Farrar Early Yorkshire Charters Vol 1 [EYC 1.],143 as quote( in AG page 2
12
For a discussion on the the Minster and the change see Cullum, page 5
break
of the link of the hospital from of name from St Peter's to St Leonards
13
AG page 16
14
Interview with the grandaughter of Samuel Bean April 1995
15
.Yorkshire Gazette
16.Wm
1904
Camidge
FRHistS '
Queries'
Vol 1 No4 July
17
Wm Camidge FRHistS 'Rufforth in the Ainsty of the City of
18.
Bishop 19. Cullum
20 Prof J Savine ‘English Monasteries on the eve of
the Dissolution' p 163
21.Cullum
P 5 recites the traditions and evidence for a pre conquest foundation
22.
P H Cullum , 'Hospitals in Medieval Yorkshire' DPhil, thesis ,
23.
M Bloch , 'Les Caracteres originaux de l'hist.oire rUJ:ale francaise',p12, as
quoted by Bishop to say that granges in
24.
The full details of the survey in 1287 are shown in AG at page 5
25.
Cullum p17 'St Leonard's budgeted to spend about 4d per person per week on food
in the infirmary ,which does not seem to have been a great deal ,although
economies of scale may have meant that the hospital could provide food more
cheaply than if it were bought individually or by a smaller institution'
26
See AG pages 2 and 3 for a full description of' the extent of the holdings of
27.
Bishop .On page 4 he discusses in detail the so called mano]~ial holdings of
Rievaulx and Fountains Abbey, and cite the evidence to show that often the term
'manor' was loosely used in accounts of the dissolved monasteries,when in
reality the term' Grange , should have been used
28
For example on page 7 of AG ,in 1461 to 1462 the closes were more and more
being let out (quoting York Minster Library ,M2/6d) and just before the dissolution
,the Grange was let out on a 30 year lease to Robert Metham and his wife,Anne (
quoting PRO,E303 26 1206,1207)
29
Bishop quotes' Assarting and the Growth of Open Fields', Econ<:mic History
Bulletin,vi,13 as a full account of the growth of open fields in
30.Bishop
page 11
31.
Chartulary of Guisborough ii 42 et seq as quoted by Bishop
32.
Cott MS Claud D xi,fos 277,271 et seq as quoted by Bishop
33.
As quoted in AG , J Parker (ed), 'Yorkshire Fines',Yorkshire Arch Rec Ser Vol
62, (1921),28,132
34
Bishop quotes the 'Chapters of the Augustinian Canons' pl14 and R H Snape
'Monastic Finance' plO in support of this contention
35
Bishop quotes the Malton Account rolls as a specific example
36
Bishop - see final page of article for estimates of number of granges and their
overall importance in the mediavel economy of
37
A Beardwood, 'Records of the Trial of Walter Langton’
38
W Farrar 'Early Yorkshire Charters',Vol 1,356-357 as quoted by J Kaner in AG
39
Transcription of Acomb parish Registers p187 vol 4 - an undated terrier which
states :- 'In the same field (ie Chapel Field) are 2 acres called Grange Flat
bounded by the
40
Acomb Parish Registers -. Burials June 1798 "Thomas Walker, glover of
Acomb Grange - Comsumption'
41
Private manuscript by P Brown - 'Survey of the fabric of Acomb Grange in 1995' -
at the time of writing still not complete
42
John Etty ,plan for a house at Acomb Grange 1694,North Yorkshire County Record
Office (ZDU mic 1294 fr 2255)
43
. Quoted by AG,G Beard 'Craftsmen and interior decoration in
44.
AG p15
45
I Kershaw. '
1286-1325',1973,OUP,pp
30 to 38
46
Wm Camidge FRHistS 'Rufforth in the Ainsty of the City of York Its Ancient and
Modern History' C L Burdekin York 1903 at page 22 says 'A few farms at this
date are held by individual owners - such as Mr Parker,Mr Fawcett,Mr Thomlinson
,Mr Marwood and Rev Appleyard but such ownership does not apply to any great
extent.The farms are respectably tenanted and the only regret is that the
farmers fail frequently - too frequently to get the profits worthy of their
labour and care'
47
.Yorkshire Gazette 26th October 1907 ' A general summing up of the present day
life and prospects of this little village must recognise that its life depends
almost, entirely on the state of agriculture in the vicinity and upon the
disposition of the owner of the land for the time being, and that of the vicar
and schoolmaster.
Times
would improve in Rufforth and the population show a steady increase if
smallholdings, each carrying a house, were available and were well worked. That
accomplished, the character of the provi~;ion for its mental and physical
recreation, indeed, the whole (ompleJ:ion of itds outlook would largely depend on
the leadership of the three local worthies I have named'