« PreviousContinue »
ment, and which likewise may now be considered satisfactorily ascertained, is the origin of the supplementary name of Thorp Audlin as derived from Aldelin, the king's steward, the owner of the manor of Thorp next Smeaton in the time of Henry II.
But besides these, the various notes have also thrown some light upon still one further question, the date of the introduction of windmills into England, and I propose here to collect into one narrative the information on this subject scattered through the various notes; to which I shall add some few other remarks.
The general opinion seems to be, at least the usual "authorities say so, that windmills were introduced into this country "in the time of the Crusaders." This statement is in itself sufficiently vague, and one would think that its vagueness ought to have excited some suspicion, and led to some enquiry. But as it seems to have been received with pre-eminent meekness and complacency, I propose to go behind it in order to bring the local mills to the test, so as to compare this statement of "the authorities" with the account told by the mills themselves and by their surroundings, as well as by their history; and I think that after listening to their tale, and collating what has been brought forward in connection with these Osgoldcross notes, we shall consider ourselves justified (1) in attributing the introduction of windmills into England to a date much earlier than any Crusade; (2) in asserting without the shadow of a doubt that their introduction had taken place, at least in this great county, long before the Survey was made; and (3) in pointing out that while its compilation was proceeding, there was an extensive addition to the mill-power of the county, that addition including many of the new-fashioned windmills.
I note in the first place that among other rules which guided their construction, it was always an important point with the eleventh and twelfth century mill-builders to place a mill towards the extremity of a manor, where it could be easily reached by the inhabitants of more than one populous centre, as populations then went. Now the manors were generally bounded by topographical features, by streams or by highlands; and with water-mills only in use, advantage could be taken only of the winding streams in the valleys. But the discovery of the practicability of driving mills by wind
power, whenever that was made, at once permitted the millbuilders to utilize the hill-boundaries. And this (which is thus the essence of the question) was done to a considerable extent by those who contributed the large increase in the number of mills in England, which was witnessed by the second half of the eleventh century.
Of the extent to which this addition had recently been, and was even then being made, there is much evidence scattered throughout the Domesday Survey. At York, the construction of the King's Pool had led to the recent destruction of "two new mills of the value of 20s.," at Malton a site was allotted but the mill was not yet erected. This was the case at Bramham also, and at Treeton, each in the fee of the Earl of Morton; at (North) Elmsall and at Thorp (Audlin) in the wapentake of Osgoldcross and the fee of Ilbert de Lascy; at Tinsley and Hooton Levett in the fee of Roger de Busli; at Cave in the fee of Robert Malet; at Bolton in the fee of William de Percy; and at Appleton (Roebuck), Thorp (Arch), and Ogleston (Tolleston) in that of Osbern de Arches. Thus the number of the mills was being universally, but not extravagantly, increased; each lord adding one, two, or three, according to his wealth and public spirit. And while some of these new mills were undoubtedly of the older construction, a very superficial examination into the facts will enable the enquirer to ascertain that many were placed on hills, far from a stream, and in manors where there was no possibility of driving them by water power; indeed, in some instances there never had been a stream within the bounds of the manors that in the time of the Domesday Survey were reported to be possessed of a mill.
To begin with the place where this is written. At the time of the Survey, Pontefract (see note 90, Vol. XII., page 42) had already its supply of mills; it had three, the sites of which are still well known, and it was 450 years before a fourth was added. Of these public mills two were of the older construction, worked by water; the third was a windmill. The two water-mills were in the lowest part of the town in the hamlet called Kirkby and near the monastery there; the windmill was a secular mill belonging to the town or its lord.
To distinguish between them, and to make the line of my
argument clear, I will enter slightly into the history of all three, which I can easily do, as that history ran on two separate grooves, almost from the time when the Domesday Survey was completed. The two water-mills were I may say at once allotted to the monks, and did not cease to belong to the monastery while the foundation existed. The first was named in their earliest charter (1090) only, being subsequently considered as part of the site, and being merged into "the belongings thereto." The second, the "East mill of Pontefract," "in the outskirts" of the town (as usual) towards Knottingley, was first specifically named in Henry de Lascy's Confirmation Charter, and subsequently enumerated in the royal charter of Henry II. in 1155, and in the consecration charter of Henry de Lascy in 1159; while it received additional confirmation, still as the "East mill,” “in the outskirts" "in suburbium situm," from Abp. Roger, Pope Celestine III. and Pope Alexander III.
But the windmill, the third of the Domesday mills, was a West mill, a secular mill, a town mill, a lord's mill; and on the highest land of the manor. This need in no way be confused with the ecclesiastical mills of the lower part of the town; for it was at the opposite extremity of the manor, a mile away, with all the line of the buildings of the town between. After its enumeration among the three mills of Domesday, this third mill is first mentioned by Hugh de Laval in his charter of 1122, giving it to the monastery. The gift was however but temporary; for as was the case with Hugh de Laval's gifts of churches, it reverted; the donation not being confirmed by the restored lord. But Hugh de Laval's mention of the mill is clear and distinct : Notum sit omnibus quod ego concedo et dono, et presentis carte scripto confirmo meum molendinum de villa Pontefracti," his town mill; that is as distinguished from the other two mills which belonged to the monks. All three had been enumerated together in Domesday, no distinction being made between the ancient water-mills and the newly built windmill; each was a "mill"; but one of the three, this town mill, could never have belonged to the former class, for it was on the top of a hill (still distinguished by the name of Mill Hill), and it had no neighbouring water which could have been utilized as motive power.
Pontefract town mill was therefore complete as a windmill
even in the time of Domesday. And while there were then, as I have shown, many manors in which the building had not been erected, in which the site only had been indicated on which the new mill should stand, there were other places in which, as at Pontefract, such mills had already been established, and were in taxable working condition. Neither of those at Ackworth, Darrington, Little Smeaton or Roall (all named in Domesday), could ever have been anything but a windmill. At Ackworth the site was 175 ft. above sea level, at Darrington it was 225 ft., and at Little Smeaton 125 ft.; while although it was only half as high at Roall, in each it was on the highest ground in the neighbourhood, on the borders of adjoining townships, and (except at Little Smeaton, though even there the ascent is sharp and precipitous) far from any stream that could have turned a water-wheel, and where it would therefore have been impossible to obtain a supply of running water to work one.
Moreover, each of these mills is in a position which has so many characteristics common to all, that a common design is evidenced. In each instance, as I have pointed out to have been the case at Pontefract also, the mill is near the border of the township to which it belongs, and it is distant only a few rods from converging roads; but it is reached directly only from one of them, and that by a narrow way which passes along one side of the Miller's Garth. This last is in each case a quadrilateral slip of ground, within a broader and longer, whose breadth is increased by the pathway, and whose length is increased by the square grass plot above, to which the pathway leads, and which is occupied by the mill.
I need not labour the subject; if only one of these mills was on high ground where it could never have been turned by water; if only one of them was in a manor which had no stream, my case would be established. But in neither of the instances I have given can I think exception be taken to the assumption that the present sites of the mills are those on which the eleventh century mills were placed. Neither mills nor churches, once built, could be removed without leaving evidence behind them of the migration. If, however, one such migration of these Domesday mills could possibly have taken place, all could not; so that we are fairly entitled to consider (1) that in each case the mill we now
see is on its original site; (2) that that site could never have supported a water-mill; (3) that the mill itself dates from before Domesday; and (4) that therefore mills were of preDomesday introduction to England, and had been firmly established in the country not only previous to the return of a Crusader in possession of the knowledge of any peculiar Eastern art, but even long before the first Crusader set his eager face towards the Holy Land.
Inquisition, 35 H. 3  no 29 [should have been 19].
DD [vol. 122] 63 John Talbot held lands in Kowicke & Snait in com Ebor.
67 The ancient ecclesiastical parish of Snaith comprised (beside the which gave its name to the whole) the subordinate manors of Airmyn, Balne, Carlton, Cowick, Goole, Gowdall, Heck, Hensall, Hook, Pollington and Rawcliffe. The extent of the whole was above 34,000 acres, or over 50 square miles, which incidentally shows how sparselypeopled the district was at the close of the twelfth century, when the manors were united into parishes; for it may be safely assumed that if either of these nanors had had any large population it would have been provided with a church, in which case a parochial district would have been assigned to it, consisting of one or more manors. The contrast in this respect between the Eastern end of the wapentake and the western end, where, except in Pontefract itself, churches were numerous, is considerable. Chapels, that is places of worship without a full proportion of tithes or without a burying ground, were however early erected at Whitgift, Rawcliffe and Heck, though the latter soon fell into disuse, norexcept Carlton which was on the other side of the river, in Barkston Ash where the king had six carucates, and which some little time after the Survey was made was granted out to Robert de Bruis, as recorded in a sort of supplement to the Survey-was either of the manors in this extensive parish even named in Domesday. Though the manor thus appears to have escaped assessment, incidental references to it are made under the head of Birkin, Whitley, and an unidentified place called Edeshale, apparently a co-relative to Tateshale, the two being named after King
Edwin and his wife Ethelburga or Tate (Yorkshire Archæological Journal, III., 380). Edeshale has been supposed to be Hensall. Under Birkin, a report is made in a halting hesitating fashion that that manor is said to belong to Snaith, which seems to have been an incorrect assertion by whomsoever made; for had Birkin belonged to its eastern neighbour on the other side of the water, in another wapentake, full evidence of the connection would have cropped up, which it never did. Of Whitley and Edeshale, it was stated that each was in the soke of Esnoid, which might have been. And as these three notices serve at least to show that the place had an existence, it is not easy to account for the general omission in Domesday, of all the places which afterwards formed the parish of Snaith. omission implied that there was even then some common bond which united them all; and the only suggestion that occurs to me is that in the mind of the officials who compiled that record there was some uncertainty as to the position to be allotted to the manors held by the large religious houses of York and Selby. For the former was at the time in the plenitude of its power, and the latter showed signs of obtaining equal influence, being in possession of a charter from the Conqueror himself which gave the monks of Selby equal privileges to those possessed by York (sicut melius habet ecclesia sancti Petri). Now in the original Table of Contents of the Yorkshire Domesday, which occurs at p. 298 (p. 2 of the photo-zincographic copy) the third place in order was allotted to the bishop of Durham and his tenants, the fourth to the Abbot of York, the