Manor
Strictly the borough had little connexion
with the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The
latter was centred on the castle which lay, not in the
borough, but in a detached part of the ancient parish
of Stoke. The need to maintain its garrison led to
the creation of manorial tenures in Stoke and Wolstanton ancient parishes involving the payment of
rent and the performance of castle-guard. The descent of the manor together with particulars of these
tenures, in so far as they lay in the ancient parish of
Stoke, is treated below (fn. 1) and the subject of castleguard above. (fn. 2) The manorial history of Wolstanton
is reserved for treatment under that parish.
That the borough was not included within the
manor appears to be confirmed by the reply of
Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, to the quo warranto inquiry of 1293 when, while claiming view of frankpledge, free warren, and other manorial incidents
in the manor of Newcastle, he expressly claimed
nothing from the borough apart from its firma burgi
of 40 marks. (fn. 3)
To the question whether the borough was itself
a manor it is not easy to give a definite answer. The
charter of incorporation of 1590 granted to the mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses view of frankpledge of all
the inhabitants of the borough, including those entirely and those not entirely resident. The view was
to be held in the Common Hall called the Guildhall
twice annually 'in like manner as hath been used
from ancient time'. (fn. 4) The existence of leet jurisdiction over a long, though unspecified, period,
while it constituted a normal concomitant of the
rights and privileges claimed by a lord of the manor,
did not of itself indicate manorial status. A further
statement in the charter that the burghal lands,
privileges, and jurisdictions were to be held by the
mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses as of the honor of
Tutbury does, however, give a stronger indication
of a manorial relationship between the Crown and
the borough. (fn. 5)
In the 17th century, when the inhabitants objected to grinding their corn and malt at the castle
mills, (fn. 6) the claim of the borough to be a separate
manor was brought forward to support their case.
In 1608 and 1609 Ralph Sneyd, then the lessee of
the castle mills, sued his sister-in-law Ann Sneyd for
failing to send her grain to the mills and maintaining in the town a hand grist mill set up by her
late husband George Sneyd. The defendant's case
was that, while the king was seised of a manor consisting of four several townships, there was another
manor, that of the town and borough of Newcastle.
The king had no mills in the town manor, and the
inhabitants, of whom she was one, were not bound
to do suit at the king's mills. The court, however,
could find no grounds for the distinction between
the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the supposed manor of the town. In its view the manor and
the borough were but one manor and the borough
parcel of the manor, and in consequence the inhabitants owed suit at the king's mills. (fn. 7)
Again, in the period 1664–79, when William Sneyd,
the then farmer of the castle mills, sought redress
against the mayor and corporation who had erected
a horse mill within the borough for the grinding of
grain and malt, (fn. 8) the defendants pleaded that the
mills were within the manor of Newcastle and not
within the manor of the borough. They contended
that the latter was a 'real and absolute manor held
immediately of the King's Majesty . . . consisting of
divers ancient messuages and burgages, common
land, waste ground, chief rents, and other privileges
and perquisites, as waifs, estrays, felons' goods, &c.
The manor of the borough has its distinct Court
Leet and Court Baron and no one in the borough
owes suit or service to or appears at any of the courts
of the manor of Newcastle.' (fn. 9) Finally William Sneyd
withdrew his suit and the Duchy Court in consequence was not obliged to adjudicate on the question
of the status of the borough manor. (fn. 10) This seems to be
the last occasion on which the claim of the borough
to be a separate manor was formally submitted,
and indeed by that time its validity or otherwise had
ceased to have more than an antiquarian interest. (fn. 11)
In recent times an alleged custom of the manor
was the subject of litigation. (fn. 12) Newcastle Corporation, the owners in fee simple of land in Wolstanton,
formerly copyhold of the manor, on which they had
erected Wolstanton Fire Station, brought an action
to restrain the owners of the minerals thereunder
(the Duchy of Lancaster) and the lessees of the
mining rights (Wolstanton Ltd.) from so working
the mines as to cause subsidence and damage to the
property. The defendants pleaded that there was a
custom or a right by prescription to let down the
surface without paying compensation. On appeal the
House of Lords held that the usage was unreasonable
and therefore could not form the foundation of a
custom to be recognized by the courts as valid and
that the same principle applied to the claim by prescription.