Outlying villages
Sutton

Sponsor

Victoria County History

Publication

Author

K. J. Allison (editor)

Year published

1969

Supporting documents

Pages

470-475

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Outlying villages: Sutton', A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 1: The City of Kingston upon Hull (1969), pp. 470-475. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66796 Date accessed: 16 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Sutton on Hull

The parish of Sutton on Hull, alternatively called Sutton in Holderness, (fn. 1) lay inland from Drypool on the east bank of the River Hull, covering an area of 4,741 acres. (fn. 2) The Hull formed its western boundary, and it was separated from Wawne on the north by Fore Dike, from Drypool on the south by Summergangs Dike, and from Swine on the east by various small watercourses. (fn. 3) Indeed, like the neighbouring parishes, much of Sutton is low-lying ground, drained and reclaimed over a long period. The 'South Farm' itself stood on a long, low, ridge of dry ground, which runs roughly from north-west to south-east. Other early names, however, proclaim the wet character of the area: Bransholme, or 'Brand's water meadow', Risholme, the 'water meadow overgrown with brushwood', and Soffham, the 'meadow overgrown with sedge'. (fn. 4) Around the ridge were extensive meadows and carrs. The village was aptly described in 1700 as standing 'upon a hill of about a thousand acres, encompassed formerly with morasses, but now for the most part with low commons and meadows'. (fn. 5)

The village lay mainly along the road from Wawne to Bilton that followed the line of the ridge. This was High Gate, (fn. 6) sometimes called High Street or Great Street, and now Church Street; other houses stood to the south around Low Gate, now in part College Street. (fn. 7) From the west end of the village Leads Road, alongside a 'lead' or drain, ran across the low ground to the hamlet of Stoneferry, beside the River Hull, whence a ferry crossed to the parish of Cottingham. (fn. 8) Early tracks probably led from both Sutton and Stoneferry towards Hull, but, apparently in the 18th century, the chief link with the town became Hull Road, now Ings Road, which joined Low Gate to the Hull–Preston– Hedon turnpike road. (fn. 9) Few other public roads were defined in the inclosure award of 1768, but one was Tween Dikes Road, to the south of Sutton village. (fn. 10) In the 19th century High Gate was the scene of Sutton Feast, held on St. James's Day; (fn. 11) the feast may have been a survival of one of the two fairs in Sutton mentioned in 1548–9, (fn. 12) about which nothing else is known.

The rural character of the parish was little changed in the 18th century, except in the southernmost area, close to Hull, which developed along with Drypool and eventually became part of the municipal borough in 1837. (fn. 13) The locality close to North Bridge was already, in the 18th century, known as Witham, from the family of that name. (fn. 14) This industrial growth along the River Hull had not reached Stoneferry by the mid-19th century, though there were a malt-kiln, a whiting-mill, and an oilmill in the hamlet in 1852. (fn. 15) During the next 40 years, however, the open ground between Hull and Stoneferry was largely occupied by brickworks, and in 1882 Stoneferry was taken into the borough. By c. 1910 the hamlet was completely industrialized, with mills along the whole river frontage and worker's housing in several new streets. (fn. 16)

Sutton itself remained almost entirely agricultural. Local farmers were served by at least one windmill, at the west end of the village, rebuilt in the early 18th century and eventually destroyed by fire in 1884. (fn. 17) In the 18th century, too, there were brick-kilns and a clay-pit on the south side of High Gate, (fn. 18) but most of the brick-kilns mentioned in Sutton were probably in the south of the parish, by the River Hull. (fn. 19) When changes came to Sutton in the early 19th century they involved not industry but the building of 'residences' for wealthy inhabitants of Hull. (fn. 20) Lambwath House, Sutton House, Sutton Grange, Tilworth Grange, and East Mount, with their extensive grounds, had all appeared by 1852. (fn. 21) Also early in the century Chamberlain's almshouses and Ann Watson's hospital were built in the village, the latter having been moved from Stoneferry, (fn. 22) and there were two Methodist chapels. (fn. 23) Accommodation in the church was twice increased during the first half of the century, and the building underwent a thorough restoration in the 1860s. (fn. 24) The Hull & Hornsea railway line, opened in 1864, passed through Sutton, with a station in the village, and this may have further encouraged residential development. Large houses, villas, and terraces all appeared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both in the village and along the Wawne and Bilton roads, the latter by then called Salts House Lane. (fn. 25)

The suburban growth of Hull first affected the south-east corner of Sutton parish, where houses were built along the Holderness road about the turn of the century. By the 1920s housing estates had appeared in the south of the parish around the newly-built James Reckitt Avenue, Gillshill Road, and Sutton Road, (fn. 26) and in 1929 a large part of Sutton, including the village, was taken into the borough. A municipal golf course and two hospitals have been opened there, and housing development has continued, especially since the Second World War. The northern part of the parish, which remained outside the borough in 1929, was still largely agricultural in 1966, though the Evan Fraser Hospital and an extensive wartime depot, both now disused, were situated there. (fn. 27)

Some noteworthy buildings remain to illustrate the changing character of the village. (fn. 28) The early cottages were mostly simple single-story brick boxes, but after the agricultural changes of the late 18th century some cottages were 'improved' by the insertion of dormer windows or the raising of both the walls and the roof. Surviving examples of the unimproved type are nos. 27–33 Church Street; in the same street are others with dormers (nos. 54 and 86) and several with raised walls and roofs (nos. 82–84 and 116–22). Examples of simple early farmhouses include Jessamine Cottage and Victoria Cottage, both in Lowgate. In the late 18th and 19th centuries the appearance of new farm-houses was apparently affected by the proximity of the town. Composition chimney-pieces and a fashionable doorcase, all of c. 1790, are found at no. 98 Church Street. Two farms, Westfield Cottage Farm in Wawne Road and another which formerly stood in Bellfield Avenue, were probably built about 1840, and were each treated as a Gothic cottage ornée, both inside and out. Mount Pleasant Farm is some 30 years later and is a typical Victorian model farm, with polychromatic brickwork and sharp gables.

An isolated instance of early residential development in the village is a terrace of three houses in Lowgate (nos. 25–29), built at the close of the 18th century. The surviving 19th-century villas include Sutton Grange (now Dunbar House), Sutton House, and Netherhall, all cubical houses of white brick or stucco, with detached stable blocks. At Dunbar House the windows on the south front open on to a raised terrace which ends in curved flights of steps with cast-iron balustrades. (fn. 29) The central window on each floor has stone dressings. The west front is framed by giant attenuated Doric pilasters, contrasting with the sturdy Greek Doric columns of the entrance porch. Over this porch is a heavilyframed and pedimented window. Each ground-floor window is set in a double blind arch with a fluted tympanum. The interior has a handsome staircase and several Regency marble chimney-pieces. The now demolished stable block had as its principal motif a series of widely-spaced blind arches. The house may have been designed by John Earle, since it resembles his Pilot Office in Hull. Sutton House is a tall, pedimented, three-story block in white brick with stone dressings. The Greek Doric entrance porch has a broad band of fluting at the extremities of the columns. At Netherhall the external appearance is Victorian. The house is stuccoed, and a Corinthian order, balustrades, and cornices have been added to a much plainer villa the earlier date of which is shown by the late-Georgian gate piers set back at the ends of quadrant walls. Finally, of the later-19th-century residential development in the village there survive the twin terraces of Church Mount.

Sutton was one of the larger villages of Holderness. The recorded population in 1086 was 18, (fn. 30) this probably being the number of households. Only 14 taxpayers contributed to the ninth of 1297, paying in all £1 6s., (fn. 31) but in 1377 as many as 299 adults paid the poll tax. (fn. 32) The standard fifteenth had been fixed at £4 in 1334. (fn. 33) In 1524 23 taxpayers contributed to the subsidy. (fn. 34) Sutton provided 111 men at a muster in 1539, and in 1584, when for once there are separate figures for both village and hamlet, Sutton provided 72 armed men and 13 labourers and Stoneferry 23 men and one labourer. (fn. 35) In 1672, in Sutton, 68 householders were chargeable for the hearth tax and 15 were exempt; and in Stoneferry 47 were chargeable and one exempt. (fn. 36)

In 1743 there were still only about 80 families, (fn. 37) but by the end of the century the growth of Hull was beginning to affect Sutton. In 1801 the population of the parish was already 1,569, but it almost doubled in the next decade and then steadily increased to 7,783 in 1851. By 1901 it was 15,043. The actual village of Sutton, however, excluded from the borough until 1929, remained small: 'Sutton Without' contributed only 1,377 to the population of the parish in 1901, and in 1921 it contained 2,397 people. (fn. 38)

Certain aspects of parish government in Sutton remained the responsibility of the manorial court until well into the 19th century: constables, as well as officers concerned with agricultural matters, were appointed there. The earliest records of the work of the vestry are churchwardens' accounts of 1710– 1803. The church rate varied from 1d. to 8d. in the pound during this period. In the earlier 18th century expenditure was normally between £10 and £30 a year. In the second half of the century it was rather higher, but only occasionally much in excess of £50: thus in 1794 and 1795, when extensive work was done to the church, a total of £238 was spent. In the decade 1860–70 rates of only 1d. or 1½d. were levied, but by this time the rateable value of the parish had greatly increased; it was £7,944 in 1860 and £11,630 in 1870. (fn. 39) Little is known of the work of the other vestry officers, (fn. 40) but the parish maintained its own workhouse. (fn. 41)

Manors and Other Estates

In 1086 Drew de Bevrere had five carucates and two bovates in Sutton, of which two carucates were in the soke of his manor of Burstwick. (fn. 42) This connexion with the Lordship of Holderness was not broken, and the overlords of the chief manor of Sutton were the lords of Holderness. Associated with this manor were lands called Bransholme, in the north of Sutton, and these were held up to the early 15th century under the Hilton family, of Swine; occasionally they are called a 'manor'. (fn. 43) In 1415 and later Bransholme was held under the lords of Holderness. (fn. 44)

In 1086 SUTTON was held by Lanbert, a vassal of Drew de Bevrere. (fn. 45) By the mid-12th century the demesne lordship was apparently in the hands of the Sutton family, (fn. 46) which held it until the death of Sir Thomas de Sutton shortly before 1389. (fn. 47) Like Southcoates (fn. 48) Sutton passed to the Mauleys and then, in 1415, to Sir Thomas de Sutton's heirs: there were three shares, those of Agnes Hastings, of John Godard, and of Constance Bygod and Elizabeth Salvan. (fn. 49)

The share of Agnes Hastings passed to the Bulmers in 1423 and they held it until 1558, when it was divided between eight coheirs. (fn. 50) These eight parts changed hands in the 1560s and 1570s (fn. 51) and eventually seven of them passed to the Dalton family: in 1574 Thomas Dalton acquired one-eighth of the manor from Henry Curdeux, and in 1606 William Dalton got six-eighths from John Rand and Frances Smith. (fn. 52) The Daltons retained this share of the manor until the 18th century. In 1701 Elizabeth Dalton granted eight-ninths of it to Benjamin Dalton, of Beverley, but kept one-ninth; (fn. 53) this last presumably became part of the Witham estate in Sutton. (fn. 54) The eight-ninths was in 1734 sold by Samuel Dalton to Hugh Mason, (fn. 55) and at the end of the century it seems to have been acquired by R. C. Broadley. (fn. 56)

The third share which fell to John Godard in 1415 passed in part to the Ughtreds, and they held it until 1527 when it was granted to Cardinal Wolsey. In 1535, after Wolsey's fall, it was granted by the Crown to Sir Marmaduke Constable. (fn. 57) Another part of Godard's share seems to have descended by marriage to the Stapleton family, (fn. 58) which held it until 1554 when it was granted to Thomas Alrede, Christopher Estofte, and Hugh Hungate. (fn. 59) The Constables' part of this share seems to have become fragmented in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the 1650s, for example, a dozen sales of small amounts of land took place. (fn. 60) Some part of the Constable estate was apparently acquired by the Watson family, and this too was subsequently divided, at the death of Thomas Watson, in 1665. To one section of it were attached 'royalties of courts' and other privileges, and this section was devised to Watson's nephew George Bromflete. (fn. 61) From the Bromfletes the property was inherited by Jane Ellerthorpe and Consolation Lythe; the latter sold her share to Thomas Eyres. Both of these shares were acquired by Charles Pool in 1717. (fn. 62) Pool conveyed this, described as a sixth of the manor, to Hugh Mason. (fn. 63) At the end of the century it seems to have been acquired by R. C. Broadley. (fn. 64)

Of the remaining third share, the sixth part of the manor falling to Constance Bygod in 1415 was inherited by her grandson Ralph in 1461–2. (fn. 65) By 1502–3 it had passed to John Everyngham, who was then said to hold a moiety of a sixth of the manor. (fn. 66) A share of the manor was held by this family until 1558, when it was inherited by Eleanor Strangways. (fn. 67) It may have been the bulk of this part which Thomas Hennage sold to John St. Quintin in 1558, and which, as 5/36 of the manor, was sold by Matthew St. Quintin to Thomas Dalton in 1569. (fn. 68) It was perhaps the remaining 1/36 which Dalton had acquired from Thomas Fairfax and Thomas Boynton five years earlier. (fn. 69) The estate remained with the Daltons until 1700; Thomas Dalton then devised one farm to a servant, John Champney, and the rest passed through his widow to the Witham family. (fn. 70) They sold it to Thomas Broadley in 1768. (fn. 71)

The sixth part falling to Elizabeth Salvan in 1415 remained in her family until at least 1472. (fn. 72) Some portion of it may subsequently have been detached from the holding, (fn. 73) for it was a ninth of the manor that George Salvan granted to Sir William Sydney in 1536. (fn. 74) Sydney exchanged it with the king for other lands in 1539, (fn. 75) and in 1552, described as a sixth of the manor, it was granted to the Corporation of Hull. (fn. 76) Parts of the estate were sold to John Dalton in 1668 and 1675, (fn. 77) but the rest was retained by the corporation.

The division of the manor in 1415 and its subsequent fragmentation resulted in the acquisition of its land by various owners, not all of whom enjoyed manorial rights. In 1589 six owners had such rights: the Corporation of Hull, in right of the Salvan sixth share of 1415, Philip Constable, for the Godard third, Thomas Dalton, for the Bygod sixth, and John Rand, John Harrison, and Henry Watson, all presumably for the Hastings third. (fn. 78) In the late 17th century the effective lords of the manor were the corporation, George Bromflete, who now had the Godard share, and John Dalton; the Hastings share at this time was held by a branch of the Dalton family which does not seem to have claimed manorial rights. (fn. 79) The corporation sought legal advice in 1739 on its right to hold courts and to enjoy a share of the waste grounds, fishing, and fowling. At least one other claim was made at this time: that of the Withams, who had succeeded the Daltons. (fn. 80) When another legal opinion was given in 1755 the corporation, the Withams, and an unnamed person, perhaps a member of the Mason family, all enjoyed manorial rights. Courts were also being held at this time, in right, it seems, of the former Meaux Abbey estate in Sutton. The new 'lord' was Hugh Blaydes. (fn. 81) In the later 18th century the Witham and Mason estates were both acquired by the Broadleys, and they and the corporation continued to hold courts until 1847. (fn. 82) In 1856 Miss Sophia Broadley was described as lady of the manor, and the corporation was one of several chief landowners. (fn. 83)

A berewick in Sutton belonging to the Archbishop of York was held by an unnamed freeman in 1086. (fn. 84) By the early 13th century it apparently belonged to the Meaux family, which was then giving land in Sutton to Meaux Abbey. (fn. 85) It descended in this family until the death of John of Meaux in 1372 and then passed to the Hastings family by the marriage of John's sister Alice. (fn. 86) The property was subsequently often referred to as Hastings 'manor' and it remained in the family until 1565, when Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, sold it to Thomas Dalton. (fn. 87) The so-called manor was devised by Thomas Dalton in 1700 to his wife and so into the Witham family. (fn. 88) It may eventually have been acquired by the Broadleys.

A division of the manor appears to have taken place by the late 16th century. The part retained by the Daltons is sometimes described as eightninths. (fn. 89) It was perhaps the other one-ninth that was granted by Robert Dalton to John Milner in 1594, described as the capital messuage called Hastings manor. (fn. 90) The Milners' property consisted in 1640–1 of the manor-house, fishing rights, and a windmill. (fn. 91) Members of this family are mentioned in connexion with the manor as late as 1697, (fn. 92) but in 1764 the manor and fishing were being conveyed from William Stevens to Thomas Lough. (fn. 93)

Several temporal estates in Sutton belonged to religious houses. Swine Priory received various grants of land in the 13th century, and at the Dissolution it had 37 a. of meadow in Sutton Ings worth over £2 a year. (fn. 94) Like Swine's estate in Drypool, the meadow was for a period held by Sir Richard Gresham; it was then let to William Bolton and Richard Faireclyffe in 1550, and was granted to John and Henry Constable in 1557. (fn. 95) Thornton Abbey (Lincs.) secured pasturage rights in Sutton, along with those in Drypool, in 1217, but at the Dissolution its Sutton property was valued at only 5s. A few acres of land in Sutton were included in the grants of former Thornton property to the Constables and to Sonkye and Gunson. (fn. 96) The estate of Hull Charterhouse in Sutton was given to the priory in 1379 by Michael de la Pole, its descent since the 13th century having followed that of the manor of Sculcoates. At the Dissolution it was worth nearly £12 a year. (fn. 97) In 1558 it was granted along with the priory's estate in Sculcoates. (fn. 98) The property of St. James's College was attached to Sutton church. (fn. 99)

The large estate of Meaux Abbey in Sutton was acquired from the 12th century onwards. (fn. 100) At the Dissolution it included nearly eight bovates of land, together with meadow land and pasturage rights, and was worth nearly £16 a year. (fn. 101) These lands were subsequently the subject of a number of leases, (fn. 102) the earliest being that to Lancelot Alford in 1540. (fn. 103) The Alfords continued as lessees until the mid-17th century; in 1653 Thomas Grantham was their undertenant. By 1674 a Mrs. Cornwallis held the Alford lease. (fn. 104) Grants of the Meaux property were also made in 1625–6 and 1628–9. The latter was to Edward Ditchfield, of London, and others, and it included the 'manors' of Sutton and Stoneferry, and Drypool; it eventually passed, in 1653, to Henry Cocke and he held courts in Sutton in respect of it. Martha Lacy inherited the property from Cocke, and in 1745 she sold it to Hugh Blaydes, of Hull. Blaydes was holding manorial courts in the 1740s and 1750s. (fn. 105)

Agriculture

In 1086 the cultivated land in Sutton amounted to 6 carucates and 3 bovates. Of these, 2 carucates were in the soke of Burstwick, and 3 carucates and 2 bovates were held by a vassal of Drew de Bevrere. The latter holding had 2 ploughs, 60 a. of meadow, and pasturable wood 2 furlongs long and one broad, and it was worth £2 both before and after the Conquest. There were 4 villeins and 9 bordars living on it. The remaining 9 bovates were held, under the archbishop, by a freeman, who had 3 villeins and 1½ plough. (fn. 106)

The cultivated land lay along the ridge of dry ground on which the village stood. Beyond were the marshes and carrs, and also pools, like Sutton Marr to the north of the ridge. For long the low grounds were drained only by natural channels, or 'sikes', but later by artificial dikes as well. By these means large areas of meadow and pasture were reclaimed; much of this land was used in common but some, mainly near the river in Stoneferry, was held in severalty. Prominent in the work of drainage and improvement were the Sutton family and Meaux Abbey; Meaux had received gifts of land and pasturage in Sutton from the mid-12th century onwards. Early in the next century Saer de Sutton, the lord of the manors of Sutton and Drypool, is said to have constructed a drainage ditch (later Summergangs Dike) which reached the Humber as Sayer Creek and provided a new course for the River Hull. (fn. 107) The ditch cut off a part of Drypool which was subsequently reckoned to be in Sutton parish. Saer and the abbey, together with other landowners in Sutton and Wawne, then collaborated to make the Fore Dike, which served as a drain, a canal, and a fishery, and also drove the abbey's water-mill; a parallel dike, by-passing this mill, was made for the benefit of the lords and tenants of Sutton. (fn. 108)

The early meadows and pastures seem likely to have been subject to rights of pasturage similar to those still enjoyed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Common rights in the meadows were held in respect of open-field land and there were beast-gates in the pastures. In the late 13th and early 14th centuries, for example, the Hildyard family held the commons belonging to one bovate of arable land, and they had a sheepcote in West Carr Side; in East Carr they had one beast-gate. (fn. 109) In the poor-quality carrs there were rights of common for cattle and sheep, like those enjoyed by Meaux Abbey in West Carr.

By the 17th century the disposition of fields and pastures, as well as the regulations for their use, become clearer. (fn. 110) The open-field land stretched along the ridge, sloping down towards the meadows and carrs on north and south. There were three chief fields. East Field lay on both flanks of the ridge east of the village. North, or North Carr, Field lay mostly on the north flank west of the village. And West, or Carr Side, Field lay on the south flank, again west of the village. There was also a small area of arable land, known as Clough Field at the time of the inclosure, which lay in that part of Drypool reckoned to be in Sutton parish. The commonable meadows lay on both sides of the open fields: Risholme Carr to the north of the ridge, and Sutton Ings and Carr Side Meadow to the south. The inclosure award also dealt with 'the Balks', presumably the dividing balks among the open fields, used as meadow. The better-quality pastures lay for the most part north of the ridge: East Carr, the Salts, and North Lands just beyond it, and Bransholme away to the north. The poorer-quality pastures were the carrs, on the wettest and lowest ground, which were used as common wastes. Most prominent among these were North Carr and West Carr, on either side of the ridge; the inclosure award also dealt with Sutton Common and other, unnamed, areas. There was a small area of unimproved growths next to the River Hull in the south of the parish. (fn. 111)

Ancient inclosures occupied a comparatively small area of the parish. Apart from crofts and garths around the two settlements, there were closes along the River Hull near Stoneferry (fn. 112) and several others which seem to have been shared by the various lords of parts of the manor. The Corporation of Hull, for instance, had a sixth part of Great Oxland, Spring Hill, Castle Hill, Castle Ring, and Hallcoate Walls; (fn. 113) and in 1653 the Constable family had a ninth part of the four first-named closes. (fn. 114) There were also, in the meadows, several sheepcotes and a number of small inclosures called 'pighills' (i.e. pightles). (fn. 115)

The open fields, meadows, pastures, and wastes provided extensive grazing grounds, in which landholders enjoyed rights of two kinds. First, there were 'commons', which applied to the fields, commonable meadows, and wastes, and which were either 'land' commons enjoyed in respect of a man's open-field holding, or 'house' (alternatively 'grass') commons in respect of his dwelling-house. The number of animals comprised in a common is first recorded in 1642, when an agreement was made for the stinting of West Carr, the Ings, Carr Side, and the open fields. A land common was then fixed at three beast-gates and a house common at two-and-ahalf. Each beast-gate entitled the owner to turn out one 'great mouth' (e.g. cow, ox), or four calves, or four ewe and lamb couples, or five wethers; two beast-gates were needed for a horse to be grazed. Only after harvest, when additional open-field land was available, might these stints be exceeded; then, from harvest until 11 November, a land common was reckoned as six beast-gates and a house common as five. (fn. 116) Later in the 17th century the stints were increased, presumably as the result of improved drainage of the low-lying grounds. A land common then comprised 50 sheep and 8 great mouths, a house common 30 and eight. (fn. 117) A land common is said to have been attached to each half oxgang of openfield land, (fn. 118) but by the 17th and 18th centuries it appears that no fixed ratio was observed.

The second kind of grazing right was the 'beastgate', which applied to the better-quality meadows and pastures. These entitled great mouths to be turned into North Lands, Bransholme, East Carr, and the Salts, and also the New Ings and West Croft in Stoneferry. Gates were enjoyed by many of the farmers in Sutton, and in some cases by landless cottagers, too. (fn. 119) There are occasional references to calf- as distinct from beast-gates, and to a 'foot' as a division of a gate. (fn. 120)

There are few indications of the total number of commons and gates in Sutton, but in the 18th century assessments for drainage works sometimes included a rate on grazing rights. Thus in 1720 an assessment was raised on 106½ gates and 206 commons, in 1731 on 228 commons, in 1733 on 298 commons, and in 1752 on 240 commons. (fn. 121) Supervision of these grazing rights was one of the chief duties of the bylawmen; (fn. 122) when Hugh Blaydes was holding manor courts in the mid-18th century 4 bylawmen were appointed, together with 2 affeerors, 4 tupgraves, 3 swine-ringers, a pinder, and 2 constables—one each for Sutton and Stoneferry. (fn. 123) Similar appointments were being made in the 19th century at the courts held by the Broadleys and the Corporation of Hull, even though inclosure had by then removed the common pastures. (fn. 124)

The drainage dikes and pools in Sutton provided fishing for the lords of the manor and other landowners. A fishery is first mentioned in the early 13th century, established by Meaux Abbey with a fish-house at the point where Fore Dike joined the River Hull. (fn. 125) From as early as the 13th century, too, the fishing rights of the manor included those in the Marr. (fn. 126) With the fragmentation of the manor the fishing rights became divided, (fn. 127) and the berewick also had sets in some of the dikes. (fn. 128) Most is known of the rights of the Corporation of Hull, which acquired fishing and fowling with the Salvan sixth part of the manor in 1552. The corporation sometimes let these out with its other manorial rights, but at least as early as 1677 they reserved the right to fish in the Filling and elsewhere on Midsummer Eve. (fn. 129) Their rights seem to have extended only to the Filling and the Old Williams, in the North Carr. In the late 17th and the 18th centuries the members of the corporation who exercised their right on Midsummer Eve partook of a 'fishery feast' at Sutton. These expeditions seem to have ceased in 1766, just before the inclosure of the carrs took place. (fn. 130)

The inclosure of the open fields and commons was carried out under an Act of 1763, (fn. 131) the award being made in 1768. (fn. 132) The Act recited that there were about 780 a. of open-field land, lying in East, West (or Carr Side), North Carr, and Clough Fields. The commonable meadows and pastures of the Balks, Sutton Ings, Carr Side Meadow, and Risholme Carr contained about 1,200 a. There were about 700 a. in East Carr, the Salts, Bransholme, and North Lands, and in these four pastures there were about 640 cattle-gates. Finally, the commons contained about 1,500 a. and included Sutton, Stoneferry (or West Carr), and North Carr Commons. The inclosure may have been instigated by Charles Pool, who owned the tithes as well as several farms. His epitaph in 1799 recalls that his 'spirit and example opposed the prejudices of ages against improvements in agriculture, by draining, inclosing, and planting the adjacent country'. (fn. 133)

The award set out 67 allotments. Many of them were small: 21 of under 10 a., fourteen of 10 a.–19 a., seven of 20 a.–29 a., five of 30 a.–49 a., and five of 50 a.–99 a. But the remaining fifteen were large allotments, nine of them being of 100 a.–199 a. and six of over 200 a. Of these six largest Charles Pool received 491 a. for tithes and 205 a. for his lands; Thomas Broadley got 316 a., Thomas Mowld 263 a., Mathew Witham 231 a., and the Corporation of Hull 212 a.

Thomas Broadley's allotment represented the estate which he had been building up in Sutton since the turn of the century. After the inclosure he made further substantial additions. The Witham allotment was immediately, in 1768, bought by him, and R. C. Broadley acquired Pool's estate in 1798. (fn. 134) The Broadleys thus became the largest landowners in Sutton in the 19th century, as well as the owners of the greater part of the manorial rights that remained.

Constant attention continued to be given to the sewers, banks, and clows in the 17th and 18th centuries, under the surveillance of the commissioners of sewers. (fn. 135) A scheme for a new drain through Sutton to Maunsdale Clow was put forward in 1674 by the lord of the manor of Wawne, but was rejected by the lords of Sutton. (fn. 136) In the earlier 18th century assessments for drainage work were levied from between 50 and 80 people; the amounts raised varied from £8 to £69, though in 1739 as much as £157 was raised for building a new clow at Stoneferry. (fn. 137) By the middle of the century there were proposals for the improved drainage of a wide area in the Hull valley that would have greatly affected Sutton. Charles Pool, supporting the scheme, reported in 1750 that the inhabitants of Sutton feared that the drainage water would flood their ings 'and the whole flat, south of Sutton'. (fn. 138) A serious flood in 1764 emphasized the need for improvements, (fn. 139) and it was soon after this that the drain later called the Fordike Stream was constructed, discharging into the River Hull at the south end of Sutton parish. (fn. 140) Landowners in Sutton were required to pay over a quarter of the cost of the drain. (fn. 141) In addition the inclosure award made detailed provision for drainage ditches in Sutton. (fn. 142) Although the carrs in Sutton were among the lands to benefit most from the new drain, further improvements were needed in the early 19th century. A new drain, later called the Holderness Drain, was cut under an Act of 1832, and it passed through Sutton on its way to the Humber in Marfleet. (fn. 143)

Footnotes

1 An account of the parish is in T. Blashill, Sutton in Holderness (1896).
2 V.C.H. Yorks. iii. 494.
3 For 15th-cent. descriptions of the boundaries see Blashill, Sutton, 130.
4 P.N.E.R. Yorks. (E.P.N.S.), 42–43.
5 Diary of Abraham de la Pryme (Sur. Soc. 54), 233.
6 e.g. Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, M.737.
7 Blashill, Sutton, 225. See plate facing p. 471.
8 See p. 387.
9 Blashill, Sutton, 229.
10 Copy in Hull Corp. Rec.
11 Blashill, Sutton, 290.
12 Yorks. Fines, i. 139.
13 See p. 460.
14 E.R.R.O., QDB/6/10; DDIV/16/1; see p. 472.
15 O.S. Map 6" (1855).
16 Ibid. (1893, 1911).
17 Blashill, Sutton, 226, 276–7.
18 Ibid. 224, App. pp. xii–xiii.
19 E.R.R.O., DDHB/45/161; DDBC/15/75; Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, M.650.
20 G. Poulson, Hist. Holderness, 340.
21 O.S. Map 6" (1855).
22 See pp. 341, 346.
23 See p. 323.
24 See p. 308.
25 O.S. Map 6" (1893, 1911).
26 Ibid. (1911, 1928).
27 For the hospitals see pp. 384–6.
28 The following two paragraphs are by I. Hall.
29 These are of a pattern also found at no. 94 George Street, Hull.
30 V.C.H. Yorks. ii. 216, 268.
31 Yorks. Lay Subsidy (1297) (Y.A.S. Rec. Ser. 16), 126.
32 E 179/202/60, m. 44.
33 Ibid. /43; the liberty of Beverley in Sutton paid an additional, unspecified, sum.
34 Ibid. /168; /203/181.
35 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xiv (1), p. 309; Miscellany, v (Y.A.S. Rec. Ser. 116), 95.
36 E 179/205/504.
37 Abp. Herring's Visit. Ret. iii (Y.A.S. Rec. Ser. 75), 130.
38 V.C.H. Yorks. iii. 494; Census, 1911, 1921.
39 Accts. and rate book in vestry.
40 The overseers are mentioned in 1631: Blashill, Sutton, 182.
41 See p. 440.
42 V.C.H. Yorks. ii. 264, 268.
43 Yorks. Inq. ii. 137; Cal. Inq. p.m. x, p. 259; Yorks. Inq. Hen. IV–V, 15.
44 Yorks. Inq. Hen. IV–V, 115.
45 V.C.H. Yorks. ii. 268.
46 Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.), i. 95. For a pedigree of the family see Frost, Hist. Hull, facing p. 99.
47 Blashill, Sutton, 108.
48 See p. 461.
49 Yorks. Inq. Hen. IV–V, 15, 115; Cal. Close, 1399– 1402, 370; 1413–19, 249–50.
50 See p. 461.
51 See p. 461; Yorks. Fines, ii. 51.
52 Yorks. Fines, i. 58; ii. 55.
53 E.R.R.O., DDHV/33/5.
54 See below.
55 Blashill, Sutton, 218.
56 Ibid. App. p. vi.
57 See p. 461.
58 Poulson, Holderness, ii. 328.
59 Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VII, ii, pp. 419, 422; Test. Ebor. vi. 217; Yorks. Fines, i. 174.
60 E.R.R.O., DDEV/24/2, 4–6, 9–11, 13, 16–19; /50/34, 38. See also Yorks. Fines, i. 358.
61 The other section in part went to form the estate of Ann Watson, who was apparently unrelated to Thos. Watson, and in part eventually was acquired by the Broadley family: Blashill, Sutton, 211–12, 222.
62 Ibid. 164–5, 211–12, App. pp. v–vi.
63 Poulson, Holderness, 329.
64 Blashill, Sutton, App. p. vi.
65 C 140/479/40.
66 Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VII, ii, p. 366.
67 C 142/111/44.
68 Yorks. Fines, i. 215, 366.
69 Ibid. 299.
70 Blashill, Sutton, 161. In 1767 Champney sold it to Thos. Mowld: E.R.R.O., QDB/6/9.
71 E.R.R.O., DDHB/45/146; QDB/6/10; Act for Sale of Witham Estates, 7 Geo. III, c. 73 (priv. Act).
72 C 140/518/62.
73 See p. 461.
74 L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, p. 418.
75 Ibid. xiv, p. 421.
76 Cal. Pat. 1550–3, 334.
77 Blashill, Sutton, 160.
78 Hull. Corp. Rec., M.62(1). The corporation sometimes let its right to hold courts: ibid. B.B. 4, ff. 290, 322 (1595, 1599).
79 Blashill, Sutton, 160.
80 Hull Corp. Rec., M.437.
81 E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 110. See below.
82 Blashill, Sutton, 263.
83 J. J. Sheahan and T. Whellan, Hist. York and E.R. ii. 378.
84 V.C.H. Yorks. ii. 216.
85 Chron. de Melsa, i. 300.
86 Blashill, Sutton, 23, 112.
87 Yorks. Fines, i. 308, 310.
88 Blashill, Sutton, 161.
89 C.P. 25(2)/805/1 & 2 Jas. II Hilary.
90 C.P. 43/45 rot. 12.
91 C 142/493/119.
92 C.P. 25(2)/895/9 Wm. III Mich.
93 C.P. 43/724 rot. 200.
94 Blashill, Sutton, 47–55, App. pp. i–ii; Dugdale, Mon. v. 495.
95 Cal. Pat. 1555–7, 301–2; see p. 462.
96 Dugdale, Mon. vi. 328; see p. 462.
97 Dugdale, Mon. vi. 22.
98 See p. 468.
99 See p. 306.
100 Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.) i. 95, 160, 218, 299–300, 310, 414; ii. 5, 8, 10, 11; iii. 292.
101 Dugdale, Mon. v. 396; Blashill, Sutton, 138–9.
102 Cal. Pat. 1553–4, 294; 1560–3, 189; E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 35.
103 T.E.R.A.S. i. 40.
104 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xvi, p. 724; Blashill, Sutton, 150–4; Yorks. Fines, 1614–25, 172.
105 E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 110; C 66/2351 pt. 4; /2486 pt. 34.
106 V.C.H. Yorks. ii. 216, 264, 268.
107 See p. 13.
108 Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.), esp. i. 409–12; Blashill, Sutton, passim.
109 E.R.R.O., DDRI/29/1; Spencer Stanhope MSS., E.R. Deeds, nos. 92, 94.
110 Blashill, Sutton, 187–209, map on p. 14; Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, passim.
111 Hull Corp. Rec., B.B. 8, p. 772; Stanewell, op. cit., D.900a, M. 771.
112 e.g. Stanewell, op. cit., M.531, 651, 708.
113 Ibid. D.697, 733, 900; M.483, 493, 530, 552, 577, 640, 661, 722, 748. The earthworks known as Castle Hill and Ring are apparently prehistoric: Blashill, Sutton, 265–6.
114 E.R.R.O., DDEV/24/4.
115 Hull Corp. Rec., M.112; copy of inclosure award; Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, D.643, 681, 742.
116 Hull Corp. Rec., D.844.
117 Stanewell, op. cit., M.680; E.R.R.O., DDBC/16/90; DDCV, parcel 110; DDEV/24/2; DDHB/45/1, 51, 69 150.
118 Blashill, Sutton, 193.
119 E.R.R.O., DDBC/16/90; DDEV/24/2; DDHB/45/67, 69, 70, 150; DDRI/15/3; QDB/5/10; Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, passim.
120 E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 110; DDHB/45/51, 69, 150. See p. 463.
121 E.R.R.O., CSR/4/159, 253; /16/22, 62.
122 Blashill, Sutton, 152, 160, 171–2.
123 E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 110.
124 Blashill, Sutton, 262.
125 Chron. de Melsa, i. 409–12.
126 Blashill, Sutton, 63–64, 167; Yorks. Inq. ii. 137; Yorks. Fines, i. 139.
127 Blashill, Sutton, 158–9; E.R.R.O., DDCV, parcel 110; DDEV/24/19; Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, D.649.
128 Blashill, Sutton, 264.
129 Hull Corp. Rec., M.112; Stanewell, op. cit., M.548, 698.
130 Hull Corp. Rec., M.402A, 439; Blashill, Sutton, 236–42.
131 3 Geo. III, c. 13 (priv. Act).
132 Copy in Hull Corp. Rec. The corporation was paying its share of the cost of the inclosure in 1767 and 1768: Stanewell, Cal. Hull Deeds, M.453, 455.
133 Monument in Sutton Ch.
134 E.R.R.O., DDHB/45/146, 148; QDB/6/10; Blashill, Sutton, 221–2, 260, 266.
135 E.R.R.O., CSR/4/5, 7, 48, 49; /12/7, 9, 43; /14/30, 42.
136 Blashill, Sutton, 173–4.
137 E.R.R.O., CSR/4/159, 243, 253; /16/16, 22, 26, 41 62.
138 Ibid. /19/145–6.
139 Blashill, Sutton, 242.
140 June Sheppard, Draining of the Hull Valley (E. Yorks. Loc. Hist. Ser. no. 8), 14.
141 Blashill, Sutton, 255–6.
142 Copy in Hull Corp. Rec.
143 Sheppard, op. cit. 18–19; Blashill, Sutton, 301.


Next:-->
Index