A moment’s thought will reveal the importance of timber in the agrarian economy. Second only to the right to graze their oxen, the right of access to wood was the most important of all the common rights. Oxen were kept in pastures that were fenced with wood, they ploughed with a plough whose frame was wooden, the scythe that cut the crop had a wooden handle, the cart that took the crop away was wooden, the barn that the wheat was stored in was wooden …….and so on and so forth. Men therefore had to have access to timber and it had to be in a legal way.
Broadly speaking wood can be divided into three types. Firstly there was timber, whole trees, untouched by human hand, usually called ‘maiden’s’. This provided the main supports for large building projects and because it was so slow growing was especially valuable. Timber was never subject to a right of common.
Secondly wood formed a third category and was used principally for firing. The gentleman of my acquaintance sent by his mother to collect firewood wood picked up this kind of wood but only rarely was it subject to a right of common.
Finally there was silva caedua, or underwood, cut from trees that had been coppiced or pollarded. This was used for the smaller jobs, rafters, joists and so on as well as firewood. My own house has a good sprinkling of these, complete with the bark left on. This kind of wood was subject to what was known as the common of estovers. Although ‘estover’ is a Norman word, the principle behind the right was far more ancient and can be dated back at least to the Anglo-Saxons who called the right to take wood a ‘bote’. Sir William Blackstone realised they arose from the “same necessity as common of pasture”. This is hardly surprising. Human beings desire many things but need only, food, air, water and in northern climes – shelter. Wood was as much a necessity as grazing.
Botes came in various forms;
- House or fire bote : the right to take sufficient wood to repair, or burn, in the house.
- Plow-bote and cart-bote: wood to be employed in making and repairing all instruments of husbandry.
- Hay-bote : here the word hay derives from old English, ‘hecg’, or hedge a generic term which meant not only hedges but fences.
In time the name bote gave way to the French word, estover, meaning “that which is necessary” . These rights allowed a man to ‘cut or prune’, from another man’s wastes, “for his building, inclosing, and firing or other necessary purposes.” These are a clear reflection of the ‘bote’ system and it is tempting to think that the Normans simply translated ‘botes’ into ‘estovers’ in which case they should have translated into appendant rights but Halbsbury acknowledges that opinion was divided on whether they were or not.
Timber being valuable there were of course strict and sometimes curious rules about the use of the right. It was always attached to an ancient dwelling within the manor, rather than any land, the wood was only to be used for repair of their own cottage and had to be gathered from the waste. Oddly it could not be used to enlarge or repair an extension to the house. No mention is ever made of where the wood came from to build the cottage in the first place.
Naturally enough it could not be used to build new houses and, if such were built, the right could not be extended to include the repair of those houses but its not clear what happened if a house to which the right was attached was destroyed and rebuilt.
Usually the right had to be exercisable over a limited area of the waste that was marked out by the owner or his bailiff.
The common of estovers was not limited to wood. Gorse, heather, fern or bracken and similar growths could be taken as well and Halsbury notes that although they were not supposed to be used as fodder for the cattle, they could be used for them as litter, to lie on! Thomas Hardy of course made famous furze or gorse cutting in his novel ‘The Return of the Native” and just to remind us that this website is about the life of John Martin we can relate some of this theory to real life practice in the Manor of Rampisham.
The essence of a right of common was that it was a grant [usually] attached to a piece of land but not all land had a right of common attached to it as the court roll from 1815 notes, “We present the Rector of Rampisham, his tenant, the occupier of John Daniell’s farm and the occupier of Yard farm hath no right to cut or carry away or burn any fuel or furze that shall grow out of the common of our parish in either their houses and we amerce each of them one guinea for every load they shall cut or carry away or burn in their respective houses”.
The intention of estovers was always that the timber or gorse or whatever should be used within the confines of the parish so it comes as no surprise that it could not be taken away, “We present, no person shall carry away furze or fern from the Hill into any other parish to make dung under penalty 20s a Troad”. What is surprising that it was made into dung although this probably refers more to the fern than the furze.
Common of estovers and the related turbary [next] were also unusual in that their existence was a serious hindrance to inclosure of the common. The Statute of Merton [1235 AD] allowed the lord of the manor to inclose the waste for his own use, so long as he left enough for the tenants to be able to exercise their common of pasture. If however the inclosure involved land where timber or turf was customarily taken then the lord could not ‘approve’ [inclose] the land.
Categories: In Depth
John Martin of Evershot 