RootsChat.Com

What a wonderful thing the internet is --and  roots.com is a fine example of its use.
I posted a new topic one day and overnight obtained 6 informed responses .

Wonder what an East Riding Yorkshire Grassman in 1634 would make of it all?

I did already come across the book "Rural Economy in Yorkshire 1641" by  Henry  Best . The pages of this book are scattered with the word oxegange-- but without spending many hours reading I cant find out where he qualifies  what it is in size.  Pity as his era and area is that of my grassman -Driffield around 1640.

On page 128 is an added footnote re what an oxegange is -varying significantly.I would say the main definition hinges on it being abt 12-15 acres .

I think the key here is the word itself Oxegange -- ox ( self explanatory) and gang ---journey . I remember the Geordie song Blaydon races with the words ganning down the Scotswood .

It seems the size of the oxen team was mainly 8 --with two teams of four alternating .I have read however that in some regions the team was only 4 oxen.

A Oxegang/oxegan seems to always refer to the contribution of 1 ox  to the team --so it could be 1/8 or 1/4 depending on the size of the standard team .

I would think the term ploughed in a year can't be taken literally -and being a practical term has to refer to the seasonal ploughing year.  So what with different oxen teams, different ploughing seasons and different soils ( making ploughing harder)   the size of an oxegang would  naturally vary throughout the country.

On two occasions I have come across the definition "what 1 Ox  would plough in a day ". This seems completely out of odds with 10-15 acres .

The question raised however was not on what an oxegange was but what quantity a half an oxegan of corn was.  I assumed that it was the corn collected from half an oxegang of cultivated land -so far am still of that opinion .

I did consider that perhaps oxegan was  something different to oxegange --but that seems unlikely

 Again -depending on harvest return that could vary hugely . I assumed that it was the grain of the wheat --but I am having second thoughts on that . Maybe it was corn as cut in the fields -in which case maybe the quantity ( half an oxegan of cut corn versus grain of corn) would not vary hugely.

How the grassman acquired this --and what he would use it for ( personally or to sell on) I have no idea . Maybe he assisted the harvest so was given a portion.

 In my grassman's will he owed 4-5 people money and was owed money by 4-5 people -so he obviously did a fair bit of bartering of goods.

As stated could not work out what the actually value was --so have copied it and attached it .

Merry Xmas -Phil Hanley

Seems the essential point of the occupation of grassmen is that they  were granted  rights ( limited)  to administer the "common" land. Guess common land would have to have some controls in place-otherwise it could easily become chaos .

As best I can fathom common land administration would be divided across a number of grassmen - with each an area allocated .

How long the grant was given to grassmen (thus providing a level of income security), what exactly the role  they were required to do ,what freedom they had/ what limitations existed and how much this gave them status in the farming community  is another matter.

Also specifically what daily activities did a grassman perform to earn an income?

One naturally presumes he received a wage for his role in administering the common land  -- by the parish or common land authority  --and even, perhaps, privately from some  free land holders?. 

Such incomes however appear not significant enough for Grassmen to build up wealth enough to purchase land or property. Relatively speaking this appears to be well below that of husbandman - a tenant farmer .

I thought the term grass simply inferred  "grazing". Now I am thinking it may have come from the term of 'common or grass land. I believe  common land was used for arable farming as well as grazing--but stand to be corrected .
 
It would seem logical that this occupation would disappear as  the common land disappeared in the land enclosure of later years .

Phil Hanley

For the record/interest/help of others
Latest update -27 Oct 2015. Philip Hanley - 3+ years down the track searching for the birth  of Thomas Handley -married 1728

Current task at hand is to see if I strengthen, or rule out, the link that  Thomas Handley /Hanley -born Great Driffield Jan 1705 ( father Robert) may be the same person as the Thomas Hanley ( agricultural labourer ) who married in Sutton upon Derwent in 1728 ( 21 miles away )--and who is my  direct ancestor .
Known for certain that Thomas was not born of Sutton -and in 1729 had been in the parish for about 4 years .Age stated in Dec 1729 as "about 25" making his year of birth 1704/5.

Finding a Thomas born 1705 in Driffield only happened  in the last 6 months. Before then could not find a Thomas born anywhere at this time . Based  on the large Hanley population in WRY suspected Thomas was born in the north of West riding though the distance away from Sutton seemed to make it possible rather than probable.

ERYO identified no sign of Thomas' marriage or death in Driffield or adjacent parishes. Note Bmd parish records of these as yet are not on any on-line sites.

Since my last post I have determined--
1)  No Hanley/Handley bmds exist in Driffield after first few decades of 1700s.-so that it looks as if the whole male side of the family moved out.
2) Can expect to see the remainder of ERY parish records -including Driffield-  on find my past in Jan 2016
3) Whilst Great Driffield was a sizeable market town in 1800s the population apparently only took off once  the canal was built in 1770 . Before it would have been more of a typical rural village--certainly abt 1700 and before. It did however to hold a number of annual fairs each year in the  17th century --and perhaps at these hiring took place. A 21 miles relocation  of a single man aged 21 -in these circumstances- does seem more in the probable than the possible ..

4) From findmypast came across will of Robert Handley- in 1634 -which I ordered from Borthwick . Occupation given as grassman ( as far as I can see a small- holding tenant farmer ( step above labourer) who stuck to grazing animals -and had possibly a  small amount of free hold land . Will and testament makes interesting reading -- wife Rosalund, children Herbert, William, John and Elizabeth.

5) Also obtained a copy of grant of administration for Johanis (John)  Hanley of Great Driffield to administer estate of Eliza Hanley in 1691.

Looking at historical accounts of England in 17th century it seems logical to expect that a Husbandman ( arable tenant famer ) and a  Grassman ( neither of whom had any sizeable free land ) would likely be squeezed out of farming in the next 70-100 years-and end up a hired worker.Thus the reason why the Hanley males would have left Driffield.  Certainly the land enclosures and the land purchasing by the wealthy in the 17th and 18th century makes interesting reading . Worse of course was to follow the lot of the common man in the 19th century .

My thinking is,  given a smallish population of Great Driffield in the 17th century. that the Robert who died  1634 and the Thomas who was born 1705 are likely directly related . So my next step is  to search the parish records -when on line in FindMyPast-  to see if I can establish the family line between two .

I already have a BT in which a Robert Handley was born in Great Driffield in 1675- father Johannis  (John). John then may well be the one who gained administering rights to Eliza Hanley's estate in 1691 -in which case Eliza would likely be his mother.

Then to establish the likely places where Thomas's  ( b Driffield 1705)  siblings may have moved too . This may shed some light as to whether Thomas may have moved to Sutton upon Derwent.
Suspect one of his brothers may have moved to Beverley 11 miles away ..

Given the bmd records of Driffield and surrounding parishes seem quite complete in 17th  century  and that these may be with FindMyPast in Jan,  I am hoping this can be done early 2016.

Keep me out of mischief anyway

Will update on findings .
Philip Hanley .

Came across a 1634 will and testament of a potential ancestor -from Great Driffield, East riding -in which his occupation is given as Grassman .

Searching the internet, Grassman appears a common term --but I can find little which describes exactly what the occupation was --and even less on  social standing/ wealth -compared to say Yeoman and Husbandman .

As best I can determine a Grassman seems to be a person who had certain ( but limited ) rights to land-- but only for grazing.

The  fact that a will and testament was drawn up for  a Grassman ( with what would I assume take some amount of time and money to arrange)  gave me the initial impression that he may have had some wealth ( certainly well above that of the ordinary agricultural labourers in the following 18th and 19th century -who don't  seem to have had wills and possess very little ).

I have not got around yet to studying his goods and chattels - but it does not appear to be a great wealth . He owed money to people and people owed money to him and that it dealt with in the will .

A quick glance of the web seems to indicate that some grassmen at least may have owned some small land holdings . I can't determine if they owned an ox or two .I wonder too, if in general, they owned or rented their own house .

I am assuming that in 1634 we are well before the age of land enclosure. It appears the surname disappeared from Driffield 80 years later --and I am thinking the enclosures /farm efficiencies/ reduction in farm dwellings, etc  - would put pressure on the role of Grassmen and bring about the relocation as agricultural labourers .

Anyone able shed light on the occupation, status and extent of wealth .---or direct me to an informative web page .

Regards Philip Hanley