Pirton between 1758 and 1786 from the Militia Lists by Lionel Munby

From the Militia Lists

PIRTON BETWEEN 1758 AND 1786

There may have been just under 350 people in Pirton at the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century and the size of the local population had, probably, not changed for the previous fifty years. By 1801 there were 481 people in the parish. We doi not know when the rise began but it may not have been much before the last quarter of the eighteenth century. There survive from the years 1758 to 1786 twenty Millitia Lists which name the local adult males with their occupations. These are for the years 1758, ’59, ’60, ’61, ’62, ’63, ’64, ’65, ’68, ’69, ’72, ’73, (’75, ’78, ‘79/80), ’81, (‘82/83), ’84, ’85, (’86). The years in brackets are the most likely ones for 5 updated lists. The Militia Lists were supposed to contain the names of men between the ages of 18 and 45. Altogether 302 different men are named, of whom almost exactly one half, 150, were listed in more than three consecutive years (see table). The other 152 were living or employed in Pirton for between 1 and 3 years and then moved on. Such mobility in the pre-industrial villages is common: 112 of the 152 short stay men were only listed in one year; and 104 of these 152 were servants or labourers. These Militia Lists reveal that Pirton’s society was hierarchical, a pyramid with gentry at the top, then farmers, craftsmen or tradesmen and, at the bottom, a mass of servants and labourers, of whom 104 were mobile and only 63 lived more permanently in the parish.

There were 4 named GENTRY and 2 more people, described as gentlemen in some years, farmers in others. John Radcliffe was listed in 1763 and 1664 and at least 8 of his personal servants were listed between 1763 and 1773. The Radcliffes of Hitchin Priory owned Pirton Manor in the eighteenth century; maybe John was resident at High Down, the manor house, between 1763 and 1773. The most influential permanently resident gentry were probably the Hanscombes: William was listed between 1758 and 1762, James from 1775 to 1786, and Hugh in 1784 and 1785. The Hanscombes later owned Hammonds Farm, the Grange, and Pirton Hall; which, if any, of these were theirs in the eighteenth century we do not know. Some of the personal servants listed must have worked for the Hanscombes, but only Radcliffe’s servants are described as working for a particular master. Thomas Riley or Hailey was listed as a gentleman in 1778 and 1779/80, as a farmer in 1781 and as a gentlemen again in 1762/3 to 1785. The second gentlemen farmer, John Brown, was described as a farmer in 1762, gentlemen in 1763, farmer in 1764 and gentlemen in 1765, 1768, 1769, 1772 and 1773. Does anyone know where Riley/Hailey or John Brown lived?

The SERVANTS employed by these gentry families reveal the gentry’s life style. Only male servants, of course, are listed. There were butlers (3) and footmen (3), grooms (6) and postilions (1) and coachmen (4), and 1 cook. Most of them did not stay long and some changed their job descriptions, notably grooms became coachmen. The maximum number of servants listed in any one year was 5: butler, footman, 2 grooms and coachman in 1764, for example. These servants only appear in a few years: 1763-4, 1768-9, and 1772-3. The may give us a clue as to when the gentry were resident in Pirton. A family of gardeners, called Abbiss, were listed between 1762 and 1786. There were 3 of them, Thomas (1762-75), William (1768-9, and James (1772-5 and 1786), which may mean there were 2 different James. Significantly the only years apart from 1786, in which any of the Abbiss family were listed as gardeners were 1762, 1764 and 1768-75. In other years they were described as labourers or poor men. Maybe this is another clue to gentry residence in Pirton. William Burkett was listed as a gamekeeper in 1784, but as a servant or labourer in other years between 1779/80 and 1785. According to the Quarter Sessions Calendar (Vo.VIII), John Radcliffe registered Henry Burkett in 1768 (p.528) as his gamekeeper for his manor of Pirton. Certificates for killing game (licences) were first issued in 1784. Under this new Act Henry Burkett, yeoman, and William Burkett, yeoman, received certificates in 1792 when they lived at Offley (p.597). Gamekeepers seem to have been people of some substance so might be described as yeomen, even though employed by, and so servants of, the lord of the manor.

Far and away the most important group in late eighteenth century Pirton, as at most other times in the past, were the FARMERs. In addition to the two gentleman farmers, no fewer that 37 people were described as farmers at one time or another. There was also one husbandman, John Squires in 1764, and 10 skilled farm workers. Only 6 of the ‘farmers’ and Squires, the husbandman, were listed for fewer thatn 4 consecutive years. So unlike the servants and labourers they were, in the main, long stay residents. Several farming families are revealed in the Militia Lists, the Furrians, HOdsons, Hudsons or Huttsons, and the Kingsleys, for example. Of the 37, 19 were never described as anything but farmer; however 6 of these were only listed for 3 or fewer years. The majority of these farmers had different descriptions in other years, and these are revealing. There were 4 people whose farming was associated with another occupation: William Rawbone was described as a dairyman in 1758 and farmer 1759-62; Thomas Tomalin as a farmer in 1772-5 and, if it was the same Thomas, as a grocer in 1786; Thomas Holland as a yeoman-brickmaker in 1768, yeoman in 1769 and farmer in 1772-5 and 1786; finally Francis Burgis, one of 4 Burgesses or Burgis wheelwrights, who was described as a wheelwright from 1758 to 1773, became a farmer in 1775. There were 2 men, Thomas Brothers and John Kingsley, who were described as farmers for many years but in 1769 both were described as husbandmen. This will have been an idiosyncracy by the constables who made out he list for that year, Peter Goldsmith a carpenter and William Wells a weaver. What it tells us, however, is that Brothers and Kinsley were probably farming on quite a small scale, primarily to feed their own families, and lived by local exchange of their produce, rather than by producing for the market. This is what husbandmen were.

The 12 farmers, whose changing descriptions tell us most about local society at the time, were all described at one time or another, as servant or labourer. The son or younger brother of a farmer was normally described as his servant if he lived in or labourer if he lived in his own cottage. If and when such a relative inherited the farm he was described as farmer. There are serval examples which illustrate this process. William Hudson was described as farmer’s servant in 1758; he never became anything else but servant or labourer; in 1773 he was, significantly, listed directly below Isaac

Hodson, farmer. John King (1775-85) was described successively as servant, labourer, farmer; William Titmus (1775-86) as servant and then farmer, but suddenly in 1786 as servant again; this may well have been a second William, a young son, becoming liable for militia service. Richard Smith junior (1762-86) was successively labourer, ploughman, servant and farmer; he was constable in 1784-5. Richard Smith senior (1761-75) was usually described as a servant or labourer, but as thresher in 1763 and sack carrier in 1769; in 1773 and 1775 he was listed as a poor man with children. The descriptions of Richard Dawson (1765-86) and Edward Law (1768-86) were even more revealing, for both of them were described in 1769, the year in which the constable liked the description, as husbandmen, and in the next year for which we have a list, 1772, as farmer. They had both been ploughmen earlier.

There were 6 other farmers whose descriptions chop and change between farmer and labourer, or even servant, in a fashion which at first sight does not make sense. It may be that 4 of these 6 were smallholders who had to go out to work for others to keep alive. William Palmer (1758-1773) was only described as farmer in 1758 and as labourer in all other entries except for 1763 when he had a most unusual description, ‘mossman and seedman’. Daniel T(h)ompson (1763-86) was only described as a farmer in 1763; for other years he was either a servant or a drawn man or a substitute. John Right or Wright (1772-86) was described as a servant in 1772-73, then in 1775, significantly, entered as a farmer but deleted and entered again later in the list as a labourer! In 1778 he was described as a farmer with 3 children, but after that as a servant, or labourer, with his children counted. John Cowland (1760-73) was described for two years as a labourer, then for two as a farmer, and the pattern was repeated in his remaining four entries. The 3 farmers whose descriptions defy any interpretation (which I can make) were in 2 cases also described as labourer and yeoman and in the third as labourer and dealer. This last was John Kingsley (1778-86) who may have been the son of John Kingsley (1758-69), the farmer-husbandman. The other two were William Mann (1761-9), successively labourer, farmer, labourer, constable, yeoman and John Furrian (1758-65), successively farmer, labourer, farmer, yeoman, farmer. Sine a yeoman was normally an independent, one would have thought prosperous, freeholder, it is difficult to see how any constable could have described as yeoman as a labourer.

Of the 10 SKILLED FARM WORKERS, 4 were ploughmen, 3 shepherds, 2 horsekeepers and 1 a thresher or sackcarrier, a distribution which probably represents pretty accurately employment in local farming. This was, I assume, an arable farming area in which sheep were kept to graze the stubble. Of the 10 skilled farm workers, 4 belonged to local farming families, younger brothers presumably; 3 of the farmers had been ploughmen before acquiring their farms. Only 1 ploughman, 1 shepherd and the horsekeeper were listed for a single year. Unusually all the remainder of these farm workers were resident for long spells; the average was over 15 years. This is different from many Hertfordshire villages where ploughmen and shepherds seem often to have moved on every year or so.

There were 22 men engaged in BUILDING: 13 carpenters, 2 sawyers, 2 bricklayers, and 5 thatchers; in addition 1 farmer had been descried as a yeoman-brickmaker. The carpenters were peculiarly mobile; no fewer than 5 were listed in one year only, as were 1 sawyer and 1 bricklayer; 1 carpenter and 1 thatcher were listed for only three years. Some of these trades were followed by several members of the same family. There were 2 Turner and 4 Goldsmith carpenters. George Turner (1758-69) was followed by John (1763-85), possibly George’s son. Peter Goldsmith (1758-69) may have had 3 sons: John (1772), Thomas (1779/80), and Daniel (1784-86); it looks as if two of the younger Goldsmiths moved on. All the 5 thatchers were called Hill: John (1758-60); John junior (1758-1773); William (1758-75), who began his life as a horsekeeper, was a labourer in 1759-64, constable in 1765 and thatcher from 1768; Thomas (1768-86) who began and ended his life as a labourer but was described as a thatcher in 1772-3 and in 1781; and finally a third John (1775-86) a labourer and thatcher.

Closely connected with building, as with farming, were the 6 BLACKSMITHs and 5 WHEELWRIGHTs; 1 blacksmith and 1 wheelwright were listed for one year only and a second blacksmith for two years only. Family groups were identified with both trades. 4 of the 6 blacksmiths were called Odell and 4 of the 5 wheelwrights were called Burgess. Richard Odell (1758-73) had lost one eye by 1772 when he was described as ‘won Eied man’, ‘got but one Eye’ in 1773; Robert (1768-86), Daniel (1772-86), and Thomas (1779/80-82/3) completed the family. Francis Burgess (1758-75) was the oldest member of his family; in 1775 he was described as a farmer. Peter (1778-86), William (1778 and 1786), and John (1781-85) completed this family.

The next largest group of tradesmen were involved in CLOTHING Pirton’s inhabitants: 7 cordwainers or shoemakers, 3 tailors and 2 weavers. Only 3 of the cordwainers were listed for a single year; all the other 9 were listed for four or more years. There were 3 Crouch cordwainers; Francis (1758), John (1758-84) and a second John (1773-86). The 2 weavers, both William Wells, may have been father and son; 1758-69 and 1773-86. All 3 tailors were called Brown: William (1758-65), Daniel (1768-85), and James (1782/3-85).

Only 7 men retailed FOOD and DRINK; 1 farmer was also a grocer. The 7 consisted of 2 butchers, 1 poulterer or higler, that is a travelling salesman, 1 grocer, 1 miller and 2 victuallers or innkeepers. 1 butcher was present for one year only and the only miller was listed for two years. The two victuallers may not have been the innkeepers; Robert Primett (1761-85) was successively described as servant, labourer, victualler, constable, victualler, poor man with children; while John Hipgrave (1782/3-85) was successively victualler, labourer, waggoner. Branch Johnson in his Hertfordshire Inns – West Herts describes the White Horse as ‘kept in 1806 by Abigail Lake or Luke, whose family ….continued there for forty years’. A William Lake appeared in the Militia Lists between 1778 and 1786, described as a farmer. The Live and Let Live was ‘in 1774 a cottage heretofore in the occupation of Sarah Furrian, widow, afterwards of Christopher Crouch and now of John Hill’ (p.75). John and Thomas Furrian were farmers, listed respectively from 1758-65 and 1758-73; was Sarah the widow of one of them or their mother? The only Christopher Crouch in the Militia Lists was listed as a substitute for a drawn man in 1784, but there were three other Crouchs, all cordwainers or shoemakers. Two of them, Francis and listed iin 1758 and John between 1758 and 1764, may have had an older brother or father called Christopher. There were two John Hills in the Militia Lists, both thatchers: the elder John was listed from 1758 to 1760, the younger from 1758 to 1773 when he acted as village constable.

Just over half the men named in the Militia Lists, 167, were never described as anything but servant or labourer: 66 were servants, 69 labourers, and a further 32 were sometimes described as one, sometimes as the other. In normal eighteenth century usage a servant was a single man who lived in and who had a contract for a year minus a day. This was to avoid his acquiring settlement rights under the Poor Law system, by a year’s continuous residence. A labourer was a married man living in a cottage, hired by the day or week or for the harvest season. One might expect, therefore, that most servants would only be listed for a single year, that labourers might appear for much longer runs of years, and that some servants who stayed for more than a year would appear in later years as labourers, having married a local girl and settled. This IS the pattern which appears in many Hertfordshire villages but not all. Of the 66 servants in Pirton, 47 were listed for a single year only, 6 for two years and only 13 remained in the village as servants, for more than three years. Of the 32 men who were sometimes described as servant, sometimes as labourer 22 simply appeared first as servant then as labourer, as one might expect, and 5 of these 22 were listed as having 3 or more children. However the labourers were more mobile than one might have expected: the majority of them, 43, were listed for only one or two years, as against only 26 for more than 3 years. There were, furthermore, some puzzling entries: 7 men first listed as labourer then appeared as servants, in a few cases coxing and boxing from year to year over four or more years; another 3 men listed as servants became labourers and then servants again. There are three possible explanations. Maybe the constables who made the returns and who changed almost every year did not make the same precise distinctions between servants and labourers as modern historians like to make. Some men may have been ‘servants’ of the gentry in one year and ‘stood-off’ in another year. On the other hand labourers who were childless and widowed, or even poverty stricken, might have gone back into service for the security. While none of the 13 people always described as servants who stayed for more than three years had children, 6 of the parallel group of 26 labourers were listed in later years as poor men with over three children. Many of the servants and labourers were younger members of local families of farmers or tradesmen. Abraham Barber listed as a farmer between 1775 and 1786 was, for example, at the centre of a family to which 1 sawyer (1758), 5 servants or labourers (‘58×2, ’63-4, ’65-’86, ’68-9) and 1 lame man (’73-’86) belonged. Relatives came to Pirton to work together or followed one another. Among the servants and labourers were 4 Arnolds, 4 Sharps or Charps, 3 Hales, 2 Augers, and 2 Cains or Kaynes. Arnold labourers were listed in 1758-62, 1758-63, and 1759, and an Arnold servant in 1778. There were 2 Sharp servants, in 1759-60 and in 1764, and 2 labourers, in 1763 and 1775-86. The Hales were all servants, 2 listed in 1762 and 1 in 1760-73. There were 2 Auger labourers in 1758-9, a Kayne servant in 1759 and a Cain servant in 1761.

There are only 8 men for whom no occupation is recorded: 2 appear in the lists of poor men with children without an occupation; 3 were similarly listed as drawn men or substitutes; one, Francis Stephen in 1784-5, was described simply as an apprentice; and Francis Brown in 1762 was listed as infirm, while William Barber (1773-86) was regularly listed simply as lame. Two people with jobs were described as disabled; a shepherd who became ‘infirm’ in 1762 was listed in the next year as labourer; and Richard Odell, the blacksmith seems to have lost one eye between 1769 and 1772. There is one problem entry: in 1772 Charles Merin is described as black with a X; one might speculate as to whether he was a negro, but the idea is too romantic. Since the next entry is ‘Richard Odell blacksmith won eyed man’ and Merin only appears in this one year, it is more likely that he was simply a journey-man blacksmith working for the disabled Odell.

The last piece of information which we can get from the Militia Lists is the name of the Constable, one or more often two each year. The office of Constable was unpaid and the post filled by a local man elected annually by the local ratepayers. It is interesting to see the kind of men chosen in Pirton. There was a much more frequent change than in many parishes. No one seems to have held the post for more than two consecutive years. In 1758 the single constable was a labourer; in 1759 and 1760 a butcher and a farmer shared the post. In 1761 one constable was a labourer; the occupation of the other cannot be ascertained. The only constable in 1762 was a labourer, in 1763 a farmer. This farmer shared the office in 1764 with a wheelwright. In 1765 the two constables were, respectively, a farmer and a thatcher, in 1768 a carpenter and a labourer. The same carpenter shared the office in 1769 with a weaver. The single 1772 constable was a labourer, in 1773 a thatcher. The two constables in 1778 were, respectively, a victualler and a labourer, in 1781 a farmer and a ‘poor man with children’; it is probable that they continued to serve in 1782/3. A farmer was constable in 1784 and 1785 and a labourer in 1786. For the years in which the constable or constables’ names are recorded, farmers served for 9 years, a labourer or poor man for 9, butchers, carpenters and thatchers for 2 each and a victualler, a weaver and a wheelwright each for one year. That so many labourers were chosen to serve suggests that the office was not exactly popular.

Occupation or Status

Totals

Listed in one year only

Listed in 2 or 3 con-secutive years only

Listed for more than 3 consecutive years

Gentry

Gentry Servants

Farmers

38 (37)

Skilled Farm Workers

Building Trades

Blacksmiths and Wheel-wrights

11 (10)

8 (7)

Clothing

Food and Drink

Servants

Servants and Labourers

Labourers

Apprentices

No Occupation

Poor Men and Children

Substitutes

Drawn Men

Infirm

Totals

302

112

150

N.B. One wheelwright became a farmer – counted as both in text.

Share this page:

Pirton Local History Group

Pirton between 1758 and 1786 from the Militia Lists by Lionel Munby