Court Records of the Bishop of Durham (introduction)

These extensive manorial court records deal with many aspects of estate administration and community life in great detail in the early modern period, from 1503 onwards (with copies of some earlier material), and with tenancy transactions over a much longer period, into the twentieth century. Although the records in Durham begin only in the early 16th century, there is another overlapping series of Durham bishopric Halmote Court rolls among the Durham Palatinate Records in the Public Record Office in London. That series runs from 1348 to 1619, and microfilm copies are available in Durham of those rolls in the PRO set which predate the start of the Durham set. The exact relationship of the two overlapping series has yet to be ascertained.
Copyhold, which evolved from medieval villein tenure, was commonly an hereditary tenure. Provided that copyholders, or others holding land according to manorial custom, paid their rents, performed the customary services and observed the customs of the manor, their estates would pass on their death to their heirs, if they claimed them. Copyholders might sell or mortgage their property, but the transaction had to registered in the Halmote Court. In the case of a transaction such as a mortgage which did not involve the absolute alienation of the holding, a defeasance stating the purpose of the surrender and the conditions under which it would be voided was also recorded in the court roll. The records of surrenders and admissions to holdings give a description of the property, often with details such as field names, mention of buildings erected on the land, and names of adjacent landholders. They therefore provide a rich source for the study of local communities, for tracing the history of property, and for the information they provide about humble people, who would not have made a will and have left little trace in other sources. Because of the hereditary element in copyhold tenure, the records of surrenders and admissions often give information in considerable detail on family relationships. The excellent article below was written by JM Fewster (Local Historian) on Court Records for the NDFHS Journal in the 1980’s,

Court Records of the Bishop of Durham

By J.M. Fewster

The records of the Bishop of Durham's Halmote court (the court of the lord of a manor held in a hall) can sometimes provide useful information for the family historian concerned with persons who lived in certain parts of the Palatinate of Durham. The extensive copyhold lands belonging to the Bishops were administered by this court and its records from 1519 onwards are housed at 5 The College, Durham, now part of Durham University Library Archives and Special Collections. Microfilms are also held here of the earlier court rolls dating from 1348, which are preserved in the Public Record Office. Copyhold tenure was abolished by the Law of Property Act of 1925 but business, mainly concerning compensation agreements as manorial incidents was extinguished and copyholds were thereby converted into freeholds, continued in the Halmote court office at Durham until 1953.

Copyhold evolved from medieval villein tenure. As the name implies, the copyholder's title was a copy of the court roll on which his or her admission was recorded. Provided that copyholders paid their rents, performed the customary services and observed the other customs of the manor, their estates would, on death, pass to their heirs, if they claimed them. A proclamation was made at three successive sessions of the Bishop's Halmote court, calling on the heirs of deceased copyholders to claim their estates on pain of forfeiture. Copyholders might sell or mortgage their property, but whatever private agreements were made, the transaction had to be finalized in the Bishop's court where the existing copyholder surrendered the holding in favour of the new tenant who was thereupon admitted. In the case of a mortgage or other transaction that did not involve the absolute alienation of the property, a defeasance stating the purpose of the surrender and the conditions under which it would become void was also enrolled in the court book. Many surrenders and admissions were made ‘out of court’ but, usually, the particulars were subsequently enrolled in the court book for the appropriate area.

The Bishop's copyhold lands were situated in wide areas, from 1720 onwards known as `divisions', around Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street, Darlington, Easington, Houghton-le-Spring, Lanchester, Stockton and Wolsingham. Each division encompassed several townships, some a considerable distance from the one after which the division was named. For example, the Chester division also covered Ryton, the Boldons, Whitburn and Cleadon; Houghton division included Burdon, Tunstall, Ryhope, East and West Herrington, Newbottle, Warden Law and Wearmouth; Wolsingham division covered Stanhope, Bishopley, Lynsack, Softley and the Bedburns (North and South). From various dates separate courts were held for some manors within the above areas, as in the case of Evenwood (with Killerby, West Auckland and West Thickley), Bishop Middleham (with Sedgefield and Conforth), Gateshead, and Whickham. Bedlington in Northumberland was the only area north of the Tyne where the Bishop held a Halmote court. Not all land in the areas named was copyhold: the Bishop let some out on lease and for this reason different records have to be consulted. Since there was a potential hereditary element in copyhold tenure, details of family relationships are often recorded in the transactions. Ancestors of one or other of the parties concerned are sometimes mentioned; married women’s maiden names (or former married names in the case of widows who had remarried) may be stated; the names of children are often given, and sometimes even distant relationships are recorded. Many copyholders were of very humble social status and these records are therefore particularly valuable as a source of information about persons for whom little or nothing else is likely to be found. A few examples taken from the Auckland court book, 1734-42, will indicate the sort of information that may be derived from such records: 10 December 1737, Alice Simpson, widow of Edward Simpson the younger, Esther wife of John Thompson, Jane wife of John Crabtree and Elizabeth wife of Nicholas Watson, daughters of the said Alice Simpson, were admitted to land at Auckland surrendered by Jane Tempest, spinster, and Ralph Smith (f.114).

19 January 1738/9, William Hodgson of Selaby, County Durham, was admitted to premises in Evenwood which Jane Marley, widow, surrendered on trust for herself for her life and thereafter for George Marley, her son, and, after his death, for his son John (f.132). 4 May 1739, Ann Vickers and Margaret Vickers, spinsters, were admitted to premises at Ramshaw which William Vickers and Margaret his wife (lately called Margaret Stephenson, spinster) and Silas Ramshaw and Ann his wife (lately called Ann Stephenson, spinster) had surrendered (f.134).

4 May 1739, Thomas Moor, grandson and heir of Elienor Taylor (late wife of Thomas Taylor) deceased was admitted to her property in Evenwood (f.134).

15 December 1738, Mary Popley, spinster, was admitted to land near Bildershaw surrendered by William Ward, eldest son and heir of Thomas Ward deceased, who was brother of William Ward late of County Durham, gentleman, deceased (f.136).

In the above examples, details of the properties have been omitted. However, a description of the property is always given in the court records, often with such details as field names, acreages and the names of adjacent landholders. Buildings erected on the land are generally mentioned. Such information is obviously of value to local historians.

Before 1733 (except during the Commonwealth period) the Court records are in Latin and are written in a variety of scripts, some carelessly or untidily executed. If there is a defeasance to surrender, however, that part is written in English.

The Halmote court records include some thousands of original surrenders written on separate pieces of paper or parchment. These duplicate the entries in the court books, though the latter do not bear the signatures (or marks) of the persons making the surrender as the originals do. Many originals must have been lost or destroyed in the course of time but where they exist they can sometimes clarify entries in the court books that are difficult to read (though some of the originals themselves can be difficult to decipher). Several lists of original surrenders have been published and may be purchased from this Department. The lists give the names of persons admitted, mainly in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but do not include the names of those who made the surrender. If relevant names appear in the lists it would indicate that a thorough search of the records would be worthwhile. The absence of such an encouraging sign should not, however, be taken to mean that an extensive search would be fruitless.

Before 1720 all transactions were entered into a single court book but after this date each division had a separate court book, with an index of persons who surrendered and of those who were admitted. The volumes before 1720 do not have such an index incorporated in them, but there is a separate series of index and alphabet books which serve the same purpose. There are certain difficulties in the use of these index volumes but they need not be explained here. Another difficulty arises from the fact some transactions in the Halmote court were, for various legal reasons, made through trustees. This complicates the researcher's task.

About the middle of the 18th century the Bishop's officials introduced a system of call numbers for plots of copyhold land. All transactions in respect of each numbered holding were recorded in call books. Eventually the court officials identified these plots on OS plans and marked the call numbers on them. They also coloured the

maps to distinguish the copyhold, leasehold and freehold lands belonging to the Bishop in County Durham. In the case of copyhold land one can refer from the call number on the map to the appropriate call book and, from the transactions listed there, proceed to the court books. Thus with the aid of these call numbers it is possible to find documents concerning an area delineated on an OS map, and conversely, again with the aid of the call numbers, one can identify on the map land about which there are entries in the call and court books. Of course the Halmote court officials could make mistakes and sometimes they were not certain about the situation or tenure of a given plot, but they clearly made great efforts to achieve accuracy and strong evidence would be needed to convince them of error.

It would be misleading to suggest that the Halmote court records always yield useful information. Even when transactions about a property are found in the court books the details given might prove disappointing and sometimes considerable time and effort is required to pursue a search. Nevertheless, there is often information that could not be obtained elsewhere to be found in these records and they deserve to be better known and more fully explored by local and family historians.

Editors Note: University staff cannot undertake searches on behalf of enquirers.

For more details see the University website at www.durham.ac.uk/library/asc