In 1279 there was
a twice-yearly view of frankpledge for the Hastings manor, and the Greys' manor in Hardwick,
Brighthampton, and Yelford had view of frankpledge and other liberties, including gallows. (fn. 86)
Courts for the Hastings manor presumably
ceased when the estate came into single ownership, (fn. 87) but in the early 17th century a tithingman
was allegedly still nominated for that part of
Yelford, and suit was paid to Bampton manor,
whose lord had waifs, strays, and felons' goods
in Yelford: there may have been confusion with
the hundred court. (fn. 88) Sixteenth-century tenants
of the former Grey manor paid suit to Hardwick's
courts, (fn. 89) which until the 1580s nominated a
separate tithingman for what was sometimes
called East Yelford, (fn. 90) namely the holdings,
mostly open-field, east of the Hastings estate. (fn. 91)
In the 1840s, and presumably until inclosure in
1853, tenants of Wadham College's Yelford
estate, descended from the Grey manor, were
still attending Hardwick's courts. (fn. 92) Mid 16th-
century courts held nominally for Yelford
Walwyn manor, but apparently serving other
small Walwyn estates in the area, presumably
ceased when Yelford Walwyn was absorbed into
the Hastings estate. (fn. 93)
The distinction between the Hastings (later
Lenthall) inclosed estate and the rest of Yelford
persisted in later parochial arrangements, tenants of the open-field land being taxed with
Hardwick and in the care of its officers (fn. 94) while
the Lenthall estate was governed from Bampton.
In 1708 rates payable to Bampton for the Lenthall
estate, assessed at 11 yardlands and by then
regarded as the whole of Yelford, were reduced
on appeal: it was found that Yelford had paid
poor-rates to Bampton for at least 50 years, had
called occasionally upon the services of Bampton's overseers, but paid for its own highway
maintenance and incurred few other costs. (fn. 95)
Bampton's overseers continued to serve Yelford
until 1758 when, after a dispute, responsibility
seems to have been placed on the Lenthalls. (fn. 96)
The Yelford for which poor-relief expenditure
was recorded in the early 19th century was only
the Lenthall estate: sometimes c. £8 was spent,
but in several years no poor were recorded. (fn. 97)
From 1834 Yelford belonged to Witney union,
from 1894 to Witney rural district, and from
1974 to West Oxfordshire district. (fn. 98)
Bampton Hund. R. 50, 63. For Hardwick manor,
above, Ducklington, local govt.
||Above, intro., econ. hist.
||P.R.O., E 134/8 Jas. I/Trin. 3.
||For court rolls 1541-7, 1561-9, and 1533-1878,
P.R.O., SC 2/197/43; Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. b 21; St. John's
Coll. Mun., XI. 9-22.
||e.g. St. John's Coll. Mun., XI.10 (152, 154).
||e.g. St. John's Coll. Mun., XI. 22, pp. 6, 23.
||B.L. Add. MS. 38961; above, manors.
||O.R.O., QS/1708 Epiph./20.
||Ibid. MS. d.d. Par. Bampton b 10, ff. 21v.-22; ibid.
b 11-13, passim.
Poor Abstract, 1818, pp. 352-3; Poor Rate Returns,
H.C. 556, p. 135 (1822), v; H.C. 334, p. 170 (1825), iv; H.C.
83, p. 157 (1830-1), xi; H.C. 444, p. 153 (1835), xlvii.
||O.R.O., RO 3251, pp. 201, 203; RO 3267.