Search

This article examines the circumstances surrounding William Combe's attempted enclosure of open fields at Welcombe, Stratford-upon-Avon. Whilst there are many references to this episode, due largely to William Shakespeare's involvement in its early stages, its place in the wider study of pre-Parliamentary enclosure has not been discussed in any detail. This can be attributed to certain features not shared by other early seventeenth-century enclosure disputes. It was not, for instance, accompanied by serious public order disturbances. Furthermore, the opposition was led not by a loose alliance of the disaffected but by a legally constituted body, the Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation, which was able to put together a strong case to persuade, first, the justices of assize, and then the Privy Council, to call a halt to Combe's efforts despite the fact that the government was becoming increasingly reluctant to enforce anti-enclosure measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parks have long attracted historians and archaeologists' attention as discrete features in the historic landscape. Traditionally, the role of parks in the economy of medieval England has been interpreted as being the preserve of deer for the hunting of the aristocracy. Hence literature emphasized their importance as status symbols in the landscape. Recently, their function has been reassessed recognising the wider economic activity of parks with regard to the pasturing of livestock and the valuable wood and timber which they offered. Focusing on a case study of Lilleshall Park, in north east Shropshire, this paper, based on the study of surviving cartographic and documentary evidence, provides an overview of developments in the post-medieval period, exploring the progress of enclosure and conversion of the park into farmland, the place of animal husbandry, the exploitation of deer, and the utilization of wood and timber resources for industrial purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article re-examines William Willington's supposed role in the enclosure of Barcheston's open fields. The allegations brought against him in 1517 and Dugdale's verdict are contradicted by evidence from the proceedings in the royal courts and the sale transactions between Willington and the previous owners, the Duraunts. These suggest that tenements were already abandoned and that there may have been some previous enclosure, possibly even before 1489, the date of previous inquiries. Although Willington may well have completed the process, he had not done so by 1509 because he did not simultaneously acquire use of all the land within the manor he later handed on to his heirs. It is also unlikely that he was solely responsible for depopulating the village as his accusers claimed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]