This was the right of digging turf or peat on another man’s ground for fuel for the commoner’s house and it was considered to be a version of common of estovers. It too was attached to possession of a dwelling house, after all what need for fuel would there be without a house. There was some fine legal debate, even in the 20th century as to whether the right could be appendant or not. What was the position for example if the house had lost its arable lands?  On the other hand it could be appurtenant to all kinds of messuages, old and new, within the manor or more surprisingly, it could be granted to people outside the manor.

The right was probably open to abuse. Halsbury notes that the turves had to be cut from grounds that were capable of producing fuel. Another writer observed that it was the right to take peat or turf, “which has become by course of time fit for burning, and not green turf”. It appears that it was common for turf to be cut “for the purpose of making and repairing grass plots in their gardens” and one version of this right allowed the commoner to ‘pare’ the surface of the ground but where the ground was fit for pasture Halsbury thought this was “of doubtful legality.” In general the commoner was expected to “dig out of the body of the ground” to obtain his turf.

Turf taken in either form had to “be expended on the premises to which the right is appendant or appurtenant” and it could not be sold commercially. This of course was in line with the idea that such rights were for the benefit of the individual and his family and were not a commercial venture.

The mere presence of peat or turf within the parish was no guarantee that a right would be granted. The court roll at Rampisham for 1815 shows how complicated matters could get. The first entry concerning turf notes, “We present No person shall cut any peat or turf without the consent of the Lords of the Manor on Higher or Lower Common and that no person be permitted to cut more than 6,000 turves on any pretence whatsoever”.

The next presentment notes that, “William Ellis, William Gundry, Joseph Gundry, Emmanuel Squibb, John Lewis, Charles Curtis, Henry Russell, John Hallet, William Green, John Roll, Joseph Ellis, John Swatridge, James Neale, William Soaper, Joseph Davis have lately illegally cut and carried away turf from Rampisham Hill and Rampisham Common without the consent of the Lords of the Manor and against standing presentments of the Jury and the Manor Court which offence is an infringement of the rights of the Lords of the Manor and also of the rights of tenants of the manor having common of pasture.”

This is an interesting entry: the soil of the waste belonged to the lord of the manor, John Daniell and we can see why his rights might be infringed by the removal of the turf if there was no right of common to do so but it also claims that those with common of pasture had their rights infringed. It is possible that the turf was in fact ‘pared’ and green which would have damaged the grazing if carried out over an extensive area.

What is surprising is that one of those named, John Swatridge, was a member of the homage while several others who, if not themselves members, had family members who were. One of those, Joseph Ellis, who had broken the law had been appointed as tythingman the year before and his job was to report crime to the local justices!

It seems therefore that there was no common of turbary at Rampisham but the following entry points to a commercial enterprise as four men, including two of the men indicted above were allowed to cut turf for a fee; “We do appoint Sam Squibb John Goldring John Lewis and Emmanuel Squibb turf cutters and direct that no other person be permitted to cut turf and that no more than 1/6d per 1000 turfs be paid for cutting the same”.

Categories: Uncategorized