South Leigh: Economic history

Pages 244-249

A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 12, Wootton Hundred (South) Including Woodstock. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1990.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


Economic history

South Leigh had its own fields and meadows by the 13th century. (fn. 36) Until the late 18th century, however, inhabitants of South Leigh and Stanton Harcourt often held strips in the common fields of both townships, and particularly on the east side of South Leigh in Lies field there was extensive intermixing of holdings with no clear boundary. (fn. 37) In the 17th century Stanton Harcourt tenants with isolated strips in South Leigh enjoyed common rights there after the harvest, (fn. 38) and the inclusion in South Leigh of Hamstall piece and part of Hamstall cow common (fn. 39) perhaps suggests intercommoning. In 1612 the agreement of the inhabitants of Stanton Harcourt and Sutton was required for an order regulating furze-cutting on South Leigh heath, (fn. 40) and following the consolidation of South Leigh into a separate estate in the early 17th century (fn. 41) there were repeated disputes over boundaries, jurisdiction, tithes, and common rights. (fn. 42) In 1773 the inclosure commissioners for Stanton Harcourt were empowered to establish a definitive boundary across Lies field and South Leigh down and to consolidate formerly intermixed holdings on one side or the other, after which all intercommoning between South Leigh and Stanton Harcourt was to cease. (fn. 43) Tenants of Woodstock manor claimed common rights in South Leigh in the mid 16th century, but there is no evidence that the rights were exercised. (fn. 44)

The Great field and Little field recorded in the 13th and 15th centuries may have corresponded with parts of Lies field and Tar field respectively, (fn. 45) but most early land grants were divided among unidentifiable furlongs and reveal no obvious balance within the South Leigh fields. (fn. 46) A mid 14th-century extent of the Harcourt manor indicates a three- course rotation with a third lying fallow, but does not distinguish between lands lying in Stanton Harcourt And those in South Leigh. (fn. 47) in the early 17th century South Leigh was said to have had three Fields from time immemorial, (fn. 48) and there were Still three in 1662. (fn. 49) some holdings in the 17th century and early 18th were evenly divided Between Home, Tar, and Lies fields, (fn. 50) which were roughly equal in area, (fn. 51) although others were divided between Lies field, Tar field, and South Leigh or Lies down, and sometimes Included substantial acreages in Stanton Harcourt's fields. (fn. 52)

The meadowland lay in the extreme southwest of the parish on both sides of the river Windrush. (fn. 53) It was separated from the village by the open fields, and in 1633 the manor court ruled that Land mead, north of the Windrush, should not be thrown open for common grazing before the crops had been carried from Tar field. (fn. 54) The extent of the medieval meadowland is unknown, although references are frequent. (fn. 55) In the 13th century Little moor, Land mead, and 'Schitescotehale' were lot meadows, (fn. 56) and division by lot continued in the 16th century. (fn. 57) In 1662 there were three common meadows, presumably Land mead, Little moor, and, south of the Windrush, Great mead. (fn. 58) The inclusion of part of Hardwick meadow within South Leigh by the 18th century (fn. 59) may indicate some sharing of meadowland with Hardwick's inhabitants, and for a time in the mid 17th century Ducklington meadow was apparently undivided from South Leigh's Great mead. (fn. 60) In the 13th century two grants of c. 15 a. of arable each included c. 3 a. of meadow, (fn. 61) and from the 16th century the standard allotment with a yardland of c. 30 a. was a yard of meadow, said in 1658 to be 6 a. (fn. 62) Less uniform medieval holdings were also recorded, however, and many 17th-century tenants held additional parcels of meadow. (fn. 63)

In the 17th century there was common pasture on the west in Lies moor, later called South Leigh moor or Rushy common, and on the North-East in South Leigh green. (fn. 64) In the Middle Ages rough pasture was also available in the extensive woodland: (fn. 65) in 1235 Richard de Harcourt granted Henry de la Wade commons for 16 cattle in Stanton Harcourt and in 'Piriho' wood, probably Tar wood, in return for agistment for his pigs in Henry's woods of Stanton, probably Herle's wood in South Leigh. (fn. 66) Underwood in Herle's wood was valued in 1303 at 3s. a year, which by 1349 had risen to 6s. 8d., and by 1420-1 to 10s. 6d. (fn. 67)

During the 13th century both the woodland and the waste were eroded through vigorous assarting. In 1227 Hawise de Grey impleaded Richard de Harcourt for inclosing part of the 'pasture', presumably common waste, and converting it to arable, and received common rights In the new closes once the corn was carried. (fn. 68) Some years later Henry de la Wade, lord of Stanton Wyard, recognized Richard's rights in the assarts of Leigh and 'Piriho' in return for common rights after the harvest and a promise not to grub or assart further without consultation. (fn. 69) By 1677 Herle's wood was a pasture ground held by a tenant farmer, (fn. 70) but in 1663 South Leigh manor still included 10 a. of woodland, (fn. 71) and in 1792 there were isolated plantations in Hamstall piece and Snakes Hole corner, Sharpes close, Great breach, and elsewhere. (fn. 72) Between 1793 and 1795, following parliamentary inclosure, over 3,000 trees, mostly pollard elms, were felled to provide fencing, (fn. 73) and in the early 19th century there were two major auctions of oak, elm, and ash. (fn. 74)

Many medieval assarts remained separate from the common fields, forming a band of irregular closes with 'breach' and 'sart' names across the north of the township and around Tar wood. (fn. 75) In the 17th century the closes bordering on South Leigh heath were still known collectively as the Assarts, and during an inquiry into manorial services it was suggested that they might still owe a yearly rent of 11s. 2d. to the Crown, payable in 1279 from certain assarts in Stanton Harcourt. (fn. 76) In the 16th and 17th centuries most were let as pasture grounds or leys, (fn. 77) although Parsons breach (and later Ellins sart) were Lammas grounds, (fn. 78) and in 1662 Thomas Ayres was growing oats in the 'Sauts'. (fn. 79)

Despite medieval assarting, South Leigh retained extensive heathland across the north part (1787). of the parish until the parliamentary inclosure. (fn. 80) In the early 17th century furze-cutting was generally allowed from 2 February and ferncutting from 14 September, (fn. 81) although in 1612 the inhabitants of South Leigh, Stanton Harcourt, and Sutton agreed that no furze should be cut for three years. (fn. 82)

The size of the medieval yardland is unknown, but in the 17th century yardlands on South Leigh manor were usually reckoned at 30 a. exclusive of meadowland. Those on Stanton Wyard manor may have been larger, and in 1605 yardlands in South Leigh belonging to the rectory estate were reckoned at only 15 a. (fn. 83) South Leigh was already divided into yardlands by the late 12th century, (fn. 84) and by 1279 had a fully developed manorial economy. There were then c. 10 villein yardlanders and 12 half-yardlanders, each owing labour services and money rents of 4s. 2d. and 2s. 1d. respectively; on the Harcourt estate in South Leigh there were also 13 cottagers, of whom two held their tenements freely for small rents while the rest owed labour services and rents of between 3s. and 4s. (fn. 85) Other free tenants were not listed, but in 1293 a total of £9 4s. 6d. was due from free tenants of the Harcourt manor, some of whom presumably held lands in South Leigh. (fn. 86) In the early 13th century Alexander de la Frith held ½ hide freely in South Leigh of Richard de Harcourt, (fn. 87) while in 1315 Henry de Grey held a house and 100 a., including 5s. rent from two cottagers. (fn. 88) In 1323 the 16 free tenants on Stanton Wyard manor paid £17 16s. a year. (fn. 89)

Besides their services on the demesne, (fn. 90) customary tenants in South Leigh of both manors owed services in the royal park at Woodstock, including mowing South Leigh meadow there and cutting browse wood for the deer in winter. (fn. 91) In the early 17th century John Skinner, lord of South Leigh manor, advised his tenants to discontinue the Woodstock services, which by then were occasionally commuted for 9s. 6d. a year for mowing and an unknown amount for browsing, raised from all the tenants. (fn. 92)

South Leigh was assessed with Hamstall for the subsidies of 1316 and 1327. Contributors numbered 38 and 57 respectively, most of whom were apparently South Leigh inhabitants. (fn. 93) Omitting John Wyard, lord of Stanton Wyard, who in 1327 was taxed on goods in South Leigh worth £12 10s., the value of movables taxed ranged from 14s. 8d. to 93s. 4d. in 1316, and from 10s. to 96s. in 1327. Most people were taxed on goods worth between 20s. and 50s. In 1316 the highest contributor was John Maykyn, but by 1327 he was only the fourth highest behind Wyard, Henry atte Hulle, and John Hicks. Over all, the average value of movables assessed rose from 33s. 7d. in 1316 to 38s. 8d. in 1327, Wyard's contribution excepted.

As elsewhere, a period of expansion in the 13th century may have been followed by contraction or stagnation, and on Stanton Wyard manor between 1323 and 1349 the number of villeins fell from 23 to 13. Another seven died during the Black Death, and on the Harcourt manor in 1349 lands of villeins and cottagers formerly rendering £30 a year lay vacant and untilled. (fn. 94) Most mortalities seem to have been at South Leigh, where the population had not recovered by 1377. (fn. 95) By the 16th century most families in South Leigh mentioned in the Middle Ages had disappeared, although the Hornes and Hawkinses survived c. 1534. (fn. 96)

By the 17th century wheat, rye, peas, beans, barley, oats, and vetches were all grown, wheat being the commonest and most valuable crop, followed by barley, oats, peas, and beans. (fn. 97) Markets included Woodstock, Witney, and perhaps Burford. (fn. 98) From the beginning mixed farming formed the basis of the economy, and sheep were probably important at South Leigh, as at Stanton Harcourt, throughout the Middle Ages. (fn. 99) In the 1540s John Seacole, described in 1546 as a woolman, (fn. 1) was twice taxed on £40worth of goods in South Leigh, (fn. 2) and in 1552 left a flock of 100 ewes there and lands in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire. (fn. 3) In the 17th century about half of those for whom probate inventories survive owned some sheep. John Brooke (d. 1624), Henry Parmee (d. 1639), and William George (d. 1672) each left more than 80, (fn. 4) while Richard Wastie (d. 1664) had a flock of 110. (fn. 5) In 1608 Richard Parmee was fined for pasturing 160 sheep above his allowance on common pasture in South Leigh. (fn. 6) Most testators also left two cows or more, and several left pigs. (fn. 7) In 1633 the stint on South Leigh green and in the common fields was 60 sheep and 12 cows per yardland. (fn. 8)

Copyhold tenure was superseded by leasehold during the early 17th century. (fn. 9) The earliest leases were for 99 years determinable upon two or three lives, (fn. 10) although after William Gore acquired the manor in the mid 17th century periods of 10 years or less also became common. (fn. 11) Leases were regularly renewed, (fn. 12) and from the late 16th century to the mid 18th several yeoman families in South Leigh survived as tenants for several generations. (fn. 13) There were 16 tenants holding at rack rent in 1722, and 21 holding for quitrents; by 1771 total income from rack rents had risen marginally, but in 1773 rents generally were said to have been unaltered for a century. (fn. 14)

By the mid 17th century c. 17 tenant farmers of South Leigh manor had holdings of 30 a. or more, and there were 28 cottagers and other smallholders. Besides their yardlands in the common fields, almost all held parcels of old inclosure ranging from c. 7 a. to 30 a. (fn. 15) Several larger farms were already beginning to emerge. The manorial farm, which included a consolidated block of old inclosures around the farmhouse, was held in 1657 by William Yateman for £117 a year, (fn. 16) and continued in the hands of tenant farmers until the late 18th century. (fn. 17) Richard Parmee of Beard Mill in Stanton Harcourt held 91 a. of arable and 2 yards of meadow in South Leigh. (fn. 18) Thomas Hart held two farms rated together at £50, and 71 a. scattered throughout various old inclosures. (fn. 19) William George and Robert Foster farmed comparable holdings, (fn. 20) and in 1662 Robert and his brother Thomas were taxed on 3 and 4 hearths respectively, among the highest assessments in South Leigh. (fn. 21)

During the 18th century the holdings of several old-established yeoman families such as the Colliers, Talbots, and Fosters were gradually absorbed into larger estates, (fn. 22) and by 1792 there were six farms in South Leigh over 100 a. They included Bartletts (115 a.), the manorial (later Church) farm (174 a.), those later known as Homans and Warners, and a large amalgamation of 467 a. held (with Warners) by Richard Francis, centred on the later Station Farm. (fn. 23) Tar farm, originally Glebe farm, appeared in the earlier 19th century. (fn. 24) Despite such amalgamations there seems to have been little consolidation of strips in the open fields before inclosure, and in 1773 many holdings still lay scattered throughout the fields of both South Leigh and Stanton Harcourt. (fn. 25)

Wheat, barley, peas, and beans were still being grown in the mid 18th century, but apparently no turnips, clover, or other new crops. (fn. 26) The meadows were said to be in good condition in 1755, (fn. 27) but in 1756 the barley on the clay land was poor following excessive rainfall, (fn. 28) and in 1769 areas of the sheep commons were ill drained, causing footrot; in 1773 tenants claimed that South Leigh down was the only field in the parish suitable for sheep in a wet year. (fn. 29)

In 1773 the inclosure commissioners for Stanton Harcourt suggested inclosing South Leigh under one bill with Stanton Harcourt; the plan was abandoned following disagreements over proposed boundaries and allotments between Edward Gore, supported by his tenants, and the Harcourts. (fn. 30) In 1792 some two thirds of the chapelry, comprising 1,366 a., was still uninclosed, and parliamentary inclosure was finally carried out in 1793. (fn. 31) John Sibthorp, the new owner of South Leigh, was awarded 6 a. for manorial rights and 1,233 a. in 18 allotments; the bishop of Oxford (as rector of South Leigh and Stanton Harcourt) received 65 a. for glebe, and John Nalder 25 a. for his freehold tenement. Cottage allotments comprised 9 a., divided among ten tenants. (fn. 32) In 1795 the cottagers claimed additional common rights, which Sibthorp challenged. (fn. 33)

The tithes were not commuted at inclosure because of opposition from the lessee of the rectory estate. (fn. 34) In 1792 Sibthorp declared himself determined 'to lay down with grass seed every acre that I can' in order to avoid tithes, and by October 1793 he had converted 10 a. of his demesne to grassland and was preparing to sow another 20 a. the following spring. (fn. 35) The same year he complained that his cottagers on the heath had ploughed up their ground in defiance of him. (fn. 36a) Tithe-payment in kind prompted complaints from South Leigh farmers, and in 1815 Humphrey Sibthorp, then owner of South Leigh, paid the lessee c. £11,000 for the tithes and glebe lands in South Leigh for the remainder of the lease. (fn. 37a)

Inclosure did not produce immediate improvement. In 1793 Sibthorp wrote that there would be little grass or hay, and that the war was depressing local markets. (fn. 38a) In 1795 the hay crop on the uplands was so light that he feared his tenants would be unable to pay their rent. (fn. 39a) Presumably the problems were overcome, and by 1815 South Leigh yielded a good income. (fn. 40a) The agricultural improvements of the late 18th and early 19th century are reflected in a lease of Hill Farm to Thomas Slatter in 1810, which included detailed instructions about crops, rotations, fallows, and fertilizers, all designed to keep the arable in good order. (fn. 41a)

In 1848 there were six farms in South Leigh of over 100 a., including Church farm and the later Station farm of over 400 a. The Glebe or Tar farm comprised 93 a. Only 18 a. were not let to tenants, consisting of scattered plantations and cottage allotments. All the farms had at least a third of their land in pasture or meadow, two being predominantly pastoral. (fn. 42a) Sheep farming continued to be important throughout the 19th century; in 1854 South Leigh was noted for its cross-bred Oxford Down and Cotswold flocks, bred by William Gillett of Church farm or Station farm, and greatly admired at Birmingham shows. (fn. 43a) The trend towards pastoral farming continued, and by the early 20th century nearly all the principal farms were predominantly pastoral. (fn. 44a) The chief exception was College farm in the south-east, deficient in pasture land but worked as one unit with Station farm during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (fn. 45a) In 1883 a report recommended that 100 a. of arable adjoining the new College farmhouse should be converted to permanent grass, and in 1880 c. 30 a. of meadowland by the Windrush, which had been turned unsuccessfully into arable, was reconverted into pasture. (fn. 46a) In 1883 livestock on the combined College and Station farms comprised 40 horses (including 26 workers), 80 horned cattle (including 40 milch cattle), 70 hogs, and 400 sheep. Wool accumulated over the previous few years was valued at £1,000. (fn. 47a)

In the 1860s or early 1870s at least 12 families emigrated to New Zealand, (fn. 48a) and in 1878 all but two of the farms were vacant. (fn. 49a) John Bryan, tenant of College and Station farms, suffered particularly badly from the agricultural depression, losing £5,000 capital in the first five years of his tenancy through successive crop failures. (fn. 50a) Drainage was inadequate, and the principal landlords undertook to drain the land at their own expense, besides allowing rent-relief. (fn. 51a) Bryan's finances never fully recovered, and he died still insolvent in 1914. (fn. 52a)

The Agricultural Labourers' Union was active in the village during the 1870s. (fn. 53a) According to the vicar attendances at meetings were never large and interest had faded by c. 1875. (fn. 54a) In 1894 the Fabian William Hines addressed a meeting on South Leigh green on the workers' struggle for life and liberty. (fn. 55a)

During the 20th century mixed farming continued, with an increasing emphasis on dairy and dry cattle. In c. 1930 Church farm, Station farm, Ivy farm (run with the Mason Arms inn), and Hill farm were all predominantly dairy and wheat farms. (fn. 56a) During the Second World War some of the pasture land was ploughed up by order, but had mostly been reseeded by 1949. (fn. 57a)

The usual rural tradesmen are recorded from the 16th century, including carpenters, (fn. 58a) blacksmiths, (fn. 59a) and in 1640 a 'painter'. (fn. 60a) Members of the Drewett family were tailors in 1664 and 1697, (fn. 61a) and from the 16th century to the 18th successive members of the Shepherd family were narrow-weavers. (fn. 62a) In 1723 John Harwood, a Cogges brickmaker living at Hill Houses, was paying 1s. 6d. a year for the right to dig clay on the waste. (fn. 63a)

In 1851 there was a blacksmith, a carpenter, and a machine-maker with his own shop, employing five men; (fn. 64a) there was still a smithy near Homans Farm in 1924. (fn. 65a) In 1881 there was a plate-layer, the station-master, and a porter; (fn. 66a) James Phipps, station-master in the 1880s and 1890s, (fn. 67a) was a local man, one of a family recorded in South Leigh since the 16th century. (fn. 68a) There was a grocer's shop by 1871, (fn. 69a) and in 1891 there were three shops. (fn. 70a)

During the 20th century the building of the Lymbrook Close estate and several modern houses along the main Witney to Stanton Harcourt road (fn. 71a) increased the number of nonagricultural workers, many working outside the village in Witney, Eynsham, or Oxford. Most of the local crafts and trades had disappeared by 1987, when the village shop and post office was closed. (fn. 72a)

An allusion to a water grist-mill in 1712 probably refers to Beard Mill in Stanton Harcourt. (fn. 73a) In 1792 there was no trace of a mill in South Leigh. (fn. 74a)


  • 36. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 704-15, 719.
  • 37. Below.
  • 38. P.R.O., STAC 8/264/14, rott. 3-6.
  • 39. O.R.O., tithe map; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11; cf. below, Stanton Harcourt, Intro.
  • 40. Bodl. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rot. 6.
  • 41. Above, Manors.
  • 42. P.R.O., STAC 8/257/1, 8/264/14; ibid. E 134/5 Chas. I/Mich. 4; Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 759, 774, 999-1001; ibid. MSS. d.d. All Souls c 191/37, 40; c 192/44-7, 51, 55, 58.
  • 43. Stanton Harcourt Incl. Act, 13 Geo. III, c. 102 (Priv. Act), 10-12; O.R.O., Stanton Harcourt incl. award.
  • 44. Below, Woodstock, Blenheim (Park to 1705).
  • 45. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 704, 707, 715, 722, 727.
  • 46. Ibid. 704, 707, 709-10, 713, 715, 719.
  • 47. P.R.O., C 135/94, no. 10.
  • 48. Ibid. STAC 8/264/14, rot. 1.
  • 49. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 864.
  • 50. Ibid. 895, 961, 970.
  • 51. O.R.O., tithe map; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 52. O.R.O., Gen. XXVII/i/1; Bodl. MS. d.d. Harcourt c 47/4; below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 53. O.R.O., tithe map; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11; Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 703, 715.
  • 54. Wilts. R.O., 3/2.
  • 55. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 703-5, 707, 713, 715, 719.
  • 56. Ibid. 715, 719.
  • 57. Ibid. 731.
  • 58. Ibid. 864; O.R.O., tithe map.
  • 59. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 60. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 851.
  • 61. Ibid. 704-5.
  • 62. Ibid. 744, 885, 914, 918, 939, 961, 971, 979; Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, ff. 7v., 13v., 31v.
  • 63. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 707, 713, 773, 856, 910, 912, 926, 940, 949.
  • 64. Ibid. 747, 755, 864, 895; ibid. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rott. 2-3; Wilts. R.O., 3/2; O.R.O., MS. Oxf. Dioc. c 2123/28; ibid. incl. award; ibid. tithe map; ibid. Cogges incl. award
  • 65. Above, Intro.
  • 66. Oxon. Fines, 99-100; cf. ibid. 128-9; below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 67. P.R.O., C 143/44, no. 15; ibid. C 135/103, no. 38; Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. b 20, f. 3.
  • 68. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 712.
  • 69. Oxon. Fines, 99-100, 128-9.
  • 70. Bodl. MS. d.d. Harcourt c 47/19 (copy of Wm. Bosvile's will, 1677).
  • 71. Ibid. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 870-1.
  • 72. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 73. W. Sussex R.O., Hawkins pps. II/1/230, II/2/244.
  • 74. Bodl. G.A. Oxon. c 317/10, pt. 2: sale cats.
  • 75. O.R.O., tithe map; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 76. P.R.O., E 134/5 Chas. I/Mich. 4; Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 856.
  • 77. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 734, 736, 789, 821-2, 830, 849, 901, 903, 912, 949, 954, 966, 983; ibid. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, passim.
  • 78. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 941; ibid. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rott. 2d.-3; O.R.O., MS. Oxf. Dioc. c 2088, p. 32.
  • 79. O.R.O., MS. Wills Oxon. 76/1/11.
  • 80. Davis, Oxon. Map (1797); O.R.O., incl. award, tithe map.
  • 81. Bodl. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rott. 1-2.
  • 82. Ibid. m. 6.
  • 83. Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, ff. 7v., 8v., 13v.-15v.; ibid. MS. d.d. All Souls c 244/50, p. 2; below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 84. Reading Cart. i. 402-3.
  • 85. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 855-7; cf. P.R.O., E 179/161/10.
  • 86. Cal. Inq. p.m. iii, p. 67; P.R.O., E 152/4, rot. 4.
  • 87. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 708.
  • 88. Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 284; P.R.O., C 134/36, no. 7. The tenancy lapsed in the late 14th cent.: Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 721.
  • 89. P.R.O., C 145/90, no. 8.
  • 90. Below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 91. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 714; below, Woodstock, Blenheim (Park to 1705).
  • 92. P.R.O., E 134/5 Chas. I/Mich. 4.
  • 93. Ibid. E 179/161/8-10; below, Stanton Harcourt, Intro., Econ.
  • 94. P.R.O., C 145/90, no. 8; Cal. Inq. p.m. ix, pp. 146, 305.
  • 95. P.R.O., E 179/161/8-10; E 179/161/42; Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 856-7; below, Stanton Harcourt, Intro.
  • 96. P.R.O., E 179/161/9, 175, 194.
  • 97. Based on a study of S. Leigh wills and inventories in O.R.O., MSS. Wills Oxon.
  • 98. P.R.O., SP 12/198, f. 107.
  • 99. Below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 1. L. & P. Hen. VIII, xxi (2), p. 99.
  • 2. P.R.O., E 179/162/235, 253.
  • 3. Ibid. PROB 11/35, f. 264 and v.
  • 4. O.R.O., MSS. Wills Oxon. 5/1/47, 144/3/2, 27/2/8.
  • 5. Ibid. 300/6/37.
  • 6. Bodl. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rot. 3d.
  • 7. O.R.O., MSS. Wills Oxon., S. Leigh inventories passim.
  • 8. Wilts. R.O., 3/2; cf. Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. b 21, f. 11.
  • 9. Bodl. MS. Rolls Oxon. 97, rott. Id., 2d.; P.R.O., C 2/Jas. I/C 24/3; Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 729, 731, 734, 736, 744-5, 751 sqq.
  • 10. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 755, 758, 763-4, 772-3, 777-8, 786-9, 792, 798-9, 802.
  • 11. Ibid. 821, 830, 849-52, 861, 866, 880, 882, 895, 910, 912, 914, 918.
  • 12. Ibid. 755, 758, 801-2, 902-3, 906-8, 940, 943, 968, 974, 976.
  • 13. P.R.O., E 179/161/194; Protestation Returns, 85-6; Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 990; O.R.O., land tax assess. 1760.
  • 14. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 990, 993; ibid. MS. d.d. Harcourt c 279, letter 19 Jan. 1773.
  • 15. Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, passim.
  • 16. Ibid. ff. 5v.-6, 61v.-63v.
  • 17. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 990, 993; O.R.O., land tax assess.; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 18. Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, f. 46v.; cf. below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 19. Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, f. 11v.
  • 20. Ibid. ff. 7v., 15v., 20v., 63v.
  • 21. P.R.O., E 179/255/4, pt. 3, m. 288; cf.Hearth Tax Oxon. 109.
  • 22. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 990-1; O.R.O., land tax assess.
  • 23. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.
  • 24. Above, Intro.
  • 25. Above; O.R.O., Stanton Harcourt incl. award.
  • 26. Bodl. MSS. Ch. Oxon. 1007, 1009, 1011, 1014.
  • 27. Ibid. 1011.
  • 28. Ibid. 1009.
  • 29. Ibid. 1014; Bodl. MS. d.d. Harcourt c 279, letter 30 Mar. 1773.
  • 30. Bodl. MS. d.d. Harcourt c 279.
  • 31. O.R.O., incl. award; M. R. Bruce, 'An Oxon. Enclosure', Top. Oxon. no. 18 (1972); above, Manors.
  • 32. O.R.O., incl. award.
  • 33. W. Sussex R.O., Hawkins pps. 11/2/244.
  • 34. Ibid. 11/1/192; Bruce, Top. Oxon. no. 18 (1972). Part of Land mead became tithe-free at the inclosure of Stanton Harcourt: Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11; below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 35. W. Sussex R.O., Hawkins pps. 11/1/192, 217, 235.
  • 36a. Lincs. R.O., 2 Sibthorp 4/34.
  • 37a. O.R.O., MS. Oxf. Dioc. c 662, ff. 147-8; Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. c 200, f. 59; W. Sussex R.O., Hawkins pps. II/4/500; B.N.C. Mun., drawer 107, abstract of title, 1875. The tithes were officially commuted 1848: O.R.O., tithe award.
  • 38a. Lincs. R.O., 2 Sibthorp 4/34.
  • 39a. W. Sussex R.O., Hawkins pps. 11/2/244.
  • 40a. Lincs. R.O., 2 Sibthorp 3/3.
  • 41a. O.R.O., MS. Chap. VII/i/1.
  • 42a. O.R.O., tithe award.
  • 43a. C. Read, 'Oxon. Farming', fnl. R. Agric. Soc. xv. 230. The elder Wm. Gillett farmed at Station Fm., the younger at Church Fm.: O.R.O., tithe award.
  • 44a. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/2/207.
  • 45a. B.N.C. Mun., 170, farm reps. 1883, 1906; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/2/205.
  • 46a. B.N.C. Mun., 170, farm reps. 1880, 1883.
  • 47a. Ibid. farm rep.
  • 48a. G. Moultrie, Six Years' Work at Southleigh (Burford, 1875), 15, 24.
  • 49a. O.R.O., MS. Oxf. Dioc. c 344, ff. 373-4.
  • 50a. B.N.C. Mun., 170, farm rep. 1880.
  • 51a. Ibid.; Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/5/67, rep. on Railway farm 2 June 1883.
  • 52a. B.N.C. Mun., 170, passim.
  • 53a. Moultrie, Six Years at S. Leigh, 24; Agric. Trade Unionism in Oxon. ed. P. Horn (O.R.S. xlviii), 50-1, 65, 76.
  • 54a. Moultrie, Six Years at S. Leigh, 24.
  • 55a. Advertisement in Bodl. G.A. Oxon. c 317/10, pt. 2.
  • 56a. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/2/207.
  • 57a. Ibid. 22/5/67, letter re Hill farm, 18 Nov. 1949; B.N.C. Mun., 1506: sale cat. 1945.
  • 58a. Witney Ct. Bks. 1538-1610 (O.R.S. liv), 91; Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 807.
  • 59a. Witney Ct. Bks. 208; O.R.O., Cal. Q. Sess. i. 283, 306.
  • 60a. O.R.O., MS. Wills Oxon. 26/2/33.
  • 61a. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 876; O.R.O., Cal. Q. Sess. i. 70 b.
  • 62a. O.R.O., MSS. Wills Oxon. 58/3/19, 149/3/5. 150/1/6; ibid. Mor. XLII/iv/1; Witney Ct. Bks. 166.
  • 63a. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 990 b; cf. ibid. 991-2; above, Cogges, Econ.
  • 64a. P.R.O., HO 107/1731.
  • 65a. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF. 22/5/67: lease 10 Dec. 1924; cf. O.S. Map 6", Oxon. XXXII. SW. (1900 edn.).
  • 66a. P.R.O., RG 11/1513.
  • 67a. O.R.O., MS. d.d. Par. S. Leigh e 5, ff. 96v., 131v.; Kelly's Dir. Oxon. (1883, 1887).
  • 68a. P.R.O., E 179/161/175, 184, 194; Bodl. MS. Top. Oxon. d 113, f. 63v.
  • 69a. P.R.O., RG 10/1450.
  • 70a. Kelly's Dir. Oxon. (1891).
  • 71a. Above, Intro.
  • 72a. Local inf.
  • 73a. Bodl. MS. Ch. Oxon. 975; below, Stanton Harcourt, Econ.
  • 74a. Reading Univ. Arch., OXF 22/16/8, no. 11.