----------------------------------------------------------------

History of Steeton

----------------------------------------------------------------

BY

John Clough, Jr.

KEIGHLEY:

PRINTED BY S. BILLOWS, HIGH STREET.

1886.

History of Steeton

–œ0�–

The village of Steeton is very ancient. This is proved from various old records, though we do not find that the Romans ever had a settlement in this immediate neighbourhood. Their stations at Colonia (Colne) on the one hand, Olicana (Ilkley) on the other, and Cambodumum (Slack in the parish of Halifax) were at no great distance; and it is most probable that a Roman road passed through the township. The Roman road is supposed to have crossed the river at the Streams, a little above the present bridge; it went straight up the hill, in the direction of the Old Bank. Nearly at the top of Old Bank there is a straight piece of road nearly paved; this is supposed to be part of the old Roman road. Traces of it were met with in the beginning of the present century, when the commons were enclosed; its direction evidently pointed at the Roman station of Slack. We have no Druidical remains to shew that the Ancient Britons were settled in the locality, though no doubt they would frequently pass through these parts on their hunting excursions. It is not till the Saxon period that we have anything reliable.

The early name of Steeton, Dr. Whitaker conjectures, is derived from its first Saxon possessor being called Stephen, and hence Stiveton or the Town of Stephen. At what period it was first inhabited, it would at this distance of time be impossible to come to a reliable conclusion. One thing is almost certain, that it must have been inhabited several generations before the conquest; perhaps not later than the reign of King Alfred. What adds strength to this conjecture is, that at the taking of the Domesday Survey, a.d. 1080-86, Steeton and Eastburn are said to contain 550 acres in cultivation. This is rather a large amount, considering that the area of the township of Steeton-with-Eastburn is 2065 acres. This proves that the township had been long inhabited previous to that period.

We are now arrived at the Norman conquest. At that time Steeton was held by a great Saxon Thane, named Gamelbar, who held eight other manors in the neighbourhood besides. He was displaced to make room for Gilbertus or Gilbert Tyson who came into England with William the conqueror, and was standard-bearer at the Battle of Hastings. This distinguished person sprung from the powerful house of Tesson, who ruled in Normandy a tract of country in the department of Calvados known as Le Cinglais, of which Thurry Harcourt was the capital. For his services at the Battle of Hastings he had twenty-nine manors granted to him by the Conqueror. He having in the reign of William Rufus joined with Robert Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, in a rebellion, his lands, along with the lands of several other Norman Lords, were forfeited to the Crown. However, in the reign of Henry I he regained favour, and had part of his estates restored to him. He had a son Adam, who was living 31st Henry I (a.d. 1131).

The next Lords were the Percys, who had already become possessed of some of the forfeited lands, but by what means we have no account. As early as a.d. 1168, a return of the Knights enfeoffed in their honour was made, and the estates of the Tysons form part. The Percy estates in Craven continued in the hands of that family for nearly four centuries after this period; it was not till the reign of Henry VII that the Percy-fee was obtained by the Cliffords through a marriage between the two families. During these four eventful centuries, could the forays, the battles, and other warlike achievements be enumerated, volumes would be filled. It certainly would be interesting to know how oft the inhabitants of Steeton were participators in these encounters; perhaps some of them were present at the Battle of Otterburne, which is so celebrated and almost immortalised in the ancient Ballad of Chevy-Chase; it is probable that some of them were engaged at the Battle of Shrewsbury. It was at the Battle of Shrewsbury, in 1403, that young Hotspur, son of the Earl of Northumberland, had joined Owen Glendower, a Welsh Chieftain, in his rebellion against Henry IV, and in which battle young Hotspur was slain. In one old document it is mentioned that the manors of Steeton and Glusburn were in 1403 in the king's hands; this was in consequence of the Earl of Northumberland taking part in rebellion. A few years after this, son of this Hotspur had the family estates restored to him, and he became the second Earl of Northumberland.

And now we come to the Stivetons, who lived at Steeton, and were mesne lords under the Percys. A mesne lord owed suit and service to his superior, had to attend him in any of his wars, and had to pay him a small sum resembling a quit-rent yearly; but in other respects the mesne lord may be considered as full proprietor of the soil. He parcelled out the land to his under-tenants, received the rents and profits; and these under-tenants held under him similarly to the tenure he held under his chief lord, and had to go to battle with him when he attended his superior. In other respects the rents of the inferior tenants were not high, - it might almost be said they were little more than nominal; and further, they appear to have been stationary, for the rent-roll of the Plumptons of both Steeton and Eastburn, in 1418, was £29 17s. 6d., and the same rent-roll to Sir Ingram Clifford about a century later was £30 18s. 10d. The difference, £1 1s. 4d. is little, and may be accounted for by encroachments on the common, which are frequently mentioned in the court-rolls. The perquisites of courts were included in the above sums, and they form more than one-third of the whole amount. It seems strange that the tenants were charged considerably more per acre for land taken from the common than they were paying for their old enclosed land. This is evidence that their farms were held at a low rent.

The first of these mesne lords under the Percys were the Stivetons; one of them Raino de Stiveton, was witness to a grant of land by the family of Allerton to Kirkstall Abbey; this deed is without date, but it is supposed by Dr. Whitaker to be about the year a.d. 1190. We have no particulars about his next successors Elias and William, but of the next, another Elias, which it is supposed was the son of William, we have some record; he had a charter from Thomas Prior of Bolton, to celebrate divine service in his chapel at Steeton, he (Elias) granting to the said prior a certain garth called Chapel-yard. Dr Whitaker conjectures that, though the chapel seems to have been detached from the house, it was merely a domestic oratory, and it is only remembered by these transactions. Robert de Stiveton, successor and probably son of the aforesaid Elias, deserves special notice - it is his recumbent statue which is to be seen in Kildwick Church at the present time. From the appearance of the statue he was a Knight-Templar, and it is probable that he would accompany Edward I to the Holy Land in 1271. King Edward made frequent excursions to Scotland, which partly accounts for the many knights he created in the northern counties. Sir Robert de Stiveton was one of these knights; he died in 1307, in the same year as his sovereign, and was buried in Kildwick Church. His funeral was a magnificent one judging from its cost; according to an article in the compotus of Bolton Abbey, there was upwards of £2 paid for fish, etc.; since more than two centuries after this time a dairy-cow could be bought for eight or nine shillings, £2 was a great sum. It was a custom in those days at a funeral of any person of note, to apply to a neighbouring monastery for extra things.

The successor of Sir Robert was John¹, the last of the Stivetons. Nothing remarkable is related of him, but he must have lived in some splendour, as it is related in the compotus of Bolton that £3 11s. 4d. was paid for half a piece of cloth and fur for his lady - £3 11s. 4d. being a much greater sum in those days than now.

The next mesne lords of Steeton were the Plumptons; Sir William Plumpton married Alice, daughter of Sir Henry Byaufiz, in 1322, and succeeded his father, Sir Robert, in 1324. This Sir William Plumpton bore for arms² ar. Five fusils in fesse, with an escallop on each fusil for difference, sa. Sir William's grandfather had adopted the arms from their connection with the Percys, the Percys' arms being az. Five fusils conjoined in fesse, or. Sir Robert de Stiveton bore the same arms, except the fusils were charged with vair for difference; both the Stivetons and the Plumptons owned the Percys as their superior lords. The Hebdens, of Hebden-in-Craven, whose superior lords were the Percys, also had for their arms erm, five fusils in fesse gu.

Sir William Plumpton died in 1362. His son, Sir Robert, married Isabella, daughter of the first Lord Scrope of Masham. He had a son, Sir William, who suffered death on the scaffold for the part he took in the insurrection in 1405, which was instigated by his uncle, Richard Scrope, Archbishop of York. Sir Robert died in 1407, and was succeeded by his grandson, Sir Robert Plumpton, who was then 24 years of age; his mother was Alice, daughter of John Gisburn, Merchant of York, who was Mayor of that city in 1371, 1372 and 1380. Sir Robert³ married Alice, daughter and heiress of Sir Godfrey Foljambe, Kt., by which marriage he obtained estates in the counties of Nottingham and Derby; he died in 1421, leaving a son William, then in his eighteenth year, and who was during his minority a ward to the Earl of Northumberland. William⁴ married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Brian Stapilton, and had two sons, Robert and William, by this marriage. Robert⁵ when young was married to Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Clifford. Robert died when he had been married three years, and then his wife was re-married to his brother William. The issue of the second marriage was two daughters⁶, Margaret and Elizabeth; Margaret was afterwards married to John, son of Brian Rocliffe of Colthorpe, com. Ebor, third Baron of the King's Exchequer; Elizabeth married John, eldest son of Henry Sotehill, Esq.

The following account is extracted from papers formerly kept at Skipton Castle - papers containing the depositions of witnesses in the great law-suit which took place after the death of Sir William Plumpton between William Plumpton and Elizabeth Clifford, and Sir Robert, son of Sir William Plumpton:-

"Be it knowne to all men, that forasmuch as it is nedeful for every true Chrysten man to testify and

"bere true wytnes in every true matter or cause, therefore we, William Ratcliffe, being the age of

"V^XX yeres, Nicholas iiiiXVIII yeres, and John Thorn of iiii^XX yeres, record and testify for verrey

"trawthe that the Lord Sir Thomas Clifford marryed his daughter Elizabeth unto Robert Plumpton,

"the eldest son and heyre of Sir William Plumpton when she was but six yeres of age and they were

"wedded at the chappel within the castel of Skypton and on the same day one, John Garth, bare her

"in his arms to the said chappel, and also it was agreed at the same time that if the aforesaid Robert

"dyed within age that then the said Lord Clifford should have the second son of the said Sir William

"Plumpton unto his said daughter. And they were but three yeres marryed when the said Robert

"died, and when she came to the age of twelve yeres she was marryed to William Plumpton, second

"son of Sir William Plumpton."

No particulars of these marriages are to be got from the Plumpton records; all evidence relating to them was suppressed, the reason being that Sir William Plumpton himself was clandestinely married⁷ to Joan Wintringham about the same time, and he was now seeking to effect a settlement of his lands on his heirs-male by his second marriage in preference to any female issue of his eldest son. Sir William had a son Robert by his second marriage; the cause of the lawsuit that followed Sir William's death was that Robert was not considered a legitimate son, and the decision was in accordance with that opinion. In 1453, Sir William Plumpton, by two enfeoffments⁸, entailed all his estates in the counties of York, Derby, Nottingham, and Stafford upon Sir William Plumpton and his heirs-male, with remainder to Robert Plumpton, his brother, and his heirs-male. These transactions are the origin of the lawsuit which sometimes seemed to slumber but never slept for upwards of thirty years, and ended in upsetting all the deep-laid plans of Sir William Plumpton to hand down his name to posterity.

As Sir William Plumpton was connected with the Cliffords and Percys, both of whom were zealous Lancastrians, it is easy to conclude why he was on the side of the Lancastrians in the War of the Roses. Two mandates were issued in rapid succession on the 12th and 13th March, 1461, by Henry VI to Sir William Plumpton, summoning all liege men of the Forest of Knaresborough (Sir William was Master Forester of Knaresborough) to meet the enemy and to repair to the royal presence with his array with all haste possible. On the 29th of the same month, being Palm Sunday, he was present at the decisive Battle of Towton; his son and heir-apparent, William, was slain, and he himself was made prisoner by Edward. He suffered imprisonment for a short time, but was released by paying a fine of £2000, which he gave bond to pay before the Feast of Pentecost following.

At the Battle of Towton, 37,000 men lost their lives, amongst whom were the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Clifford, and the flower of Craven; and it is but reasonable to suppose that Steeton had its full share among the victims of this sanguinary battle, and that the blood of many of her brave sons helped to crimson the flood of the Wharfe, which, tradition says, ran blood for three days after the battle.

Sir William Plumpton was afterwards restored to his office of Constable of Knaresborough Castle and Master-Forester of the Forest of Knaresborough; and the infant daughters of his son William, who was killed at Towton, were disposed of in marriage by him. By an indenture, dated November 26th, 1463, covenants that the governance and marriage of Margaret, being then about four years old, the eldest daughter of William Plumpton deceased, were granted to Brian Rocliffe, of Colthorpe, com. Ebor, third Baron of the King's Exchequer, to the intent that John, son and heir of the said Brian, shall take to wife the said Margaret at convenient and most speedy time, at the cost of the said Brian, and who has also to pay four hundred marks; Sir William agreeing to settle the manor of Nesfield upon them, but retaining part of the rents for first ten years. In like manner, Elizabeth, the younger co-heiress, was contracted to John, eldest son of Henry Sotehill, Esq., which Henry agrees to pay to Sir William Plumpton £333 0s. 0d., Sir William making over to them an estate of forty marks per annum.

The private life of Sir William Plumpton, after his wife's death, caused scandal in the neighbourhood; and when he received money for the marriage of his grand-daughters it must have been his fixed resolve to deprive them of their inheritance. He died in 1480, aged 76. Sometime before his death, May 1st, 1478, he made an absolute deposition of all his property, all his personal effects both movable and immovable, in favour of his son, Sir Robert Plumpton.

Sir Robert married firstly in January, 1478 (marriage covenant 13th July, 17 Edward IV. 1477) Agnes, daughter of Sir William Gascoigne, Kt., of Gawthorpe, near Harewood. She had issue William, besides other children, and died in 1504. Sir Robert married secondly before 18th September, 21st Henry VII. 1505, Isabel or Eliza, daughter of Ralph, Lord Nevill, son and heir-apparent of Ralph, Earl of Westmoreland, but they had no issue. She married secondly on March 20th, 1528-9, Lawrence Kighley, Esq., of Newhall, near Otley. Sir Robert's will is dated 10th April, 14 Henry VII. 1523, and he died the same year, aged 70.

The heirs-general and their guardians, seeing the steps that Sir William Plumpton had taken to alienate the property which they considered belonged to themselves, even as far back as the year 1453 they had to interfere in his daughter's behalf, Sir William being then attempting to make away with some property which he had previously settled in a marriage settlement; and finding that he had made such a deposition of his property as nearly if not entirely to disinherit them, saw no other means of redress than going to a court of law.

In 1482, John Roucliffe and Margaret his wife, grand-daughter of the late Sir William Plumpton, and John Sotehill and Elizabeth his wife, the other grand-daughter, entered into a bond of £2000 that Joan Plumpton and Robert Plumpton junr., that they and all others having right or title through the said Margaret and Elizabeth their wives, should abide by the decision; it was also inserted in the same bond that the Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Northumberland, and others, were the arbitrators chosen by both parties. Subsequently, February 14th, 1482-3, the conditions of the bond were altered, and the agreement was to abide by the award of the king, to be given in writing before the 7th of July ensuing. However, Edward IV died April 9th, 1483, consequently the bond was renewed on September 12th, and judgement⁹ was given on the 16th of that month by the king, Richard III. The result was that sixteen manors, producing a nett rent of £149 6s. 8d., were awarded to the heirs-general. This was considered an equitable decision; the litigants lived in harmony for a time, until another lawsuit was begun. Henry, son of John Sotehill, married a daughter of Sir Richard Empson; Empson, along with Dudley, were tyrannical and unscrupulous ministers of Henry VII. Of these it is written in the History of England by Hume and Smollett:-

"The king had found two ministers, Empson and Dudley, perfectly qualified to second his rapacious and tyrannical inclinations, and to prey on the defenceless people - these instruments of oppression were both lawyers; the first of mean birth, of brutal manners, of an unrelenting temper; the second better born, better educated, and better bred, but equally unjust, severe, and inflexible. By their knowledge in law, these men were qualified to pervert the forms of justice to the oppression of the innocent; and the formidable authority of the king supported them in all their iniquities. It was their usual practice at first to observe so far the appearance of law as to give indictments to those whom they intended to oppress: on which the persons were committed to prison, but never brought to trial; and were at length obliged, in order to recover their liberty, to pay heavy fines and ransoms, which were called mitigations and compositions. By degrees the very appearance of law was neglected, etc."

Through the instrumentality of Sir Richard Empson, another lawsuit was commenced against Sir Robert Plumpton, it was tried at York Assizes, and the verdict was against Sir Robert. He refused to abide by the verdict; he forcibly kept possession of the property; he wrote a petition to the king, who made him a Knight to protect him from arrest¹⁰; but the inexorable Empson still persevered, and it was put into the hands of Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Privy Seal. His award was that Steeton with seventeen other manors should go to the heirs-general, and only the manor of Plumpton, near Knaresborough, be assigned to Sir Robert.

Sir Robert Plumpton¹¹ was the last of the Plumptons who owned Steeton; he died a.d. 1523, aged 70. Sympathy cannot but be felt for him - he was a different man to his father - more upright in his dealings. When the first award was made assigning nearly one-half of his property to his nieces, the heirs-general, he quietly submitted to the mandate; it was when the second verdict came which awarded nearly all his remaining property to the same persons, that he made resistance to such an unjust decree.

Steeton now, the beginning of the sixteenth century, became the property of the heirs-general of the Plumptons, and it is necessary to go into the following particulars to shew how the manor first became divided into two halves and afterwards into one half and two quarters. Though the manor was apparently divided it was not really so, one farmer lived under three landlords each receiving their portion of the rent; Anthony Garforth, who was the principal tenant¹² at Steeton, had a lease granted him for eighty years dated November 21st, 1562, by Ingram Clifford for one moiety of lands there specified, and by Anthony Thorold and William Bevercoates for the other two quarters, half the rent is covenanted to be paid to Sir Ingram Clifford, and the other half to Thorold and Bevercoates in equal proportions.

It has been before stated that William, son and heir of Sir William Plumpton, Kt., was killed at the Battle of Towton, 1461, leaving two infant daughters his heirs; the eldest, Margaret, was married to John, son of Brian Roucliffe of Colthorp in Yorkshire, and one of the Barons of the Exchequer. They had a son, Brian, who married Margaret daughter of Sir Thomas Metham; they had a son John Roucliffe, who had an only daughter and heir, Ann¹³ who is supposed to have married Sir Ingram Clifford, second son of Henry the first earl of Cumberland. Sir Ingram Clifford, who had an only daughter who died young, left the half of the manor of Steeton which he owned to his nephew, George the third earl of Cumberland. This nobleman sold half¹⁴ of the manor of Steeton in 1604-5 to two land speculators of the names of Slater and Midgeley, who in 1607 sold this half to William Garforth.

Whitaker, in his history of Craven, says:- "George, Earl of Cumberland was a great but amiable man. His story admirably illustrates the difference between greatness and contentment, between fame and virtue. If we trace him in the public history of the times we see nothing but the accomplished courtier, the skilful navigator, the intrepid commander, the disinterested patriot. If we follow him into his family we are instantly struck with the indifferent and unfaithful husband, the negligent and thoughtless parent. If we enter his muniment room we are surrounded by memorials of his prodigality, mortgages and sales, inquietude and approaching want. He set out with a larger estate than any of his ancestors, and in a little more than twenty years he made it one of the least. Fortunately for his family, a constitution originally vigorous, gave way at forty-seven to hardship, anxiety and wounds."

William Slater lived in the parish of Bradford and William Midgeley in the neighbourhood of Halifax; they held lands in Steeton for about three years during which period it is thought they sold several small quantities of land. This was the origin of freeholders in Steeton for it is expressly stated in 1583 that there were no freeholders. At this time 1604-7 the property afterwards belonging to the Currers, Davys, Hustlers etc., would in all probability be purchased.

The second daughter of the aforesaid William Plumpton killed at Towton, Elizabeth, married John, son of Henry Sotehill, Esq., of Stockfaston, Herts; they had a son Henry, who when very young married the daughter of Sir Richard Empson, Kt., which has been alluded to. Two daughters were the issue of this marriage, Jane and Elizabeth. Jane, who married John, son of Sir John Constable, Kt., of Flamborough, had issue Ann and Cecilia; Ann married Sir Anthony Thorold, of Marston, Lincolnshire, whose only daughter Winfred married George, son of Sir Gervase Clifton, Kt., of Clifton, Nottingham; Sir Gervase Clifton, Bart, their son, sold one quarter¹⁴ of the manor of Steeton to William Garforth in 1613. Cecilia married firstly William Bevercoates, Esq., and secondly Clement Oglethorp, Esq., of Roundhay, near Leeds; William Oglethorp, of Roundhay, sold in the year 1600 one quarter¹⁴ of the manor of Steeton and Glusburn to William Garforth for £460, which was the first purchase made by the Garforths. Elizabeth, second daughter of Henry Sotehill, married Sir William Drury.

A survey of the manor of Steeton was taken in 1583, a few years previous to the Garforths purchasing it; it is interesting to read an account about Steeton as it was three hundred years ago. After tracing the boundaries of the township, which appear to be nearly the same as they are at present, it thus proceeds:- The Lordship or Manor of Steeton was sometime the lands of Sir — Plumpton, and before that (as is said) it was the inheritance of Sir Robert de Stiveton, Kt., who died in 1307, and whose monument or gravestone is still to be seen in Kildwick Church, the parish church of the said Lordship. The half of the said Lordship is now lawfully descended and conveyed unto George, Earl of Cumberland, and the remainder to Anthony Thorold, Esq., and dame Ann his wife, and William Bevercoates, gentleman, and Cecilia his wife, in equal proportions. The said Manor is situated in the Wapentake of Staincliffe in Craven, and thereupon is called Steeton-in-Craven, and is distant from the market-town of Skipton four miles upon the river of Aire. A great part of the lands of the said Lordship lye upon the banks of the river Aire, and are of very fertile and fruitful soil, and would yield the occupier great plenty of corn and grass, save that the river will, sometimes in summer, but very oft in winter, overflow the most part of the ground, to the great damage and loss of the inhabitants.

The Manor-house called Steeton Hall, standeth at the north end of the said town upon the banks of a brook called Steeton Beck; the same is now in convenient repair for the use of the farmer that holdeth the same. The demyne lands that belong to the said Manor are indifferently large and great, and the soil for the most part is very fertile and good, except when the river Aire overflows its banks, at which times the ground will be so degged with mud that the cattle will not feed thereupon, nor will hunger force them.

Privileges

The lords of the said Manor have had, and used to keep within the same, a Court Baron once a year, and also have had, and now hath, Waives and Estrays, with such like privileges incident, and of right or custom, belonging to the said Manor. They have also the free liberty of fishing and fowling, hunting and hawking within the limits aforesaid, and at the death of each tenant, or the most of them, their best goods for a Heriot (that is, the best horse, cow, plate, or other valuables).

Courts

There is a Court held in Craven called the Wapentake Court, or commonly the Running Court, because it is held here and there at the discretion of the officers. The same is sometimes appointed to be holden at Steeton, where the ferme of the demayne (chief tenant) yields to the officers their demands or six and eightpence in money. There is also paid out of the said Lordship thirteen and fourpence for wapentake fines; there is also another custom due to the bailiff of the Percy-fee in Craven, namely, that every husbandman shall yield him yearly a bushel of oats in respect of their services at the Gisburn Court.

Remarks

The aforesaid things should be further looked into; formerly the inhabitants owed their services to the Manor of Gisburn, then they need not suit the Wapentake Court; or otherwise if they must of necessity appear at the Wapentake Court, then they need not pay any duty to the Percy Bailiff in consideration of their appearance at Gisburn. The most likely way is that they hold of Gisburn, and that in respect of the wapentake fine they are not only to be discharged from their appearance at the Wapentake Court, but also to have in respect thereof all things incident unto the Leet of the Wapentake within the limits and bounds of the said Lordship.

Woods

There are no woods within the Lordship to make any great account of; the same is not sufficient for the maintenance of the tenant' houses, if they were kept only for that purpose. Neither is there any underwood of value, save in one parcel of the demayne there are some ellers.

There is also on the banks of the south side of the town certain Schroggs which, the inhabitants do affirm, was new copied; neither could the tenants well spare the herbage of these grounds and if they could, it is to be doubted if there would be any wood of value, as the place lieth so cold.

Commons

There is within the said Lordship one great Common called Steeton Moor, containing by estimation 300 acres, wherein the tenants of Steeton and Eastburn have common of pasture for their cattle without stint. The said common is very wild, lingy, and heathy ground, and lieth on the south side of the said towns of Steeton and Eastburn, and the tenants of the said towns do pay yearly for moor-rent twenty shillings; in consideration thereof the tenants allege that the lords of the said Manor have promised in times past to make no improvement there.

Boons

There is an ancient custom that every husbandman within the said Lordship shall yield unto the lord of the Manor of Steeton or to his Ferme for the time being, one day's ploughing, two sickle boons, one scythe boon, and one hedge boon, in which respect the lord or his said Ferme did yield to them a Dymd at Christmas, which said custom continues unto this day and is of the value of 104 shillings annually.

N.B.— The Ferme means the principal tenant who always resided at the hall, and was the representative of the lord of the Manor, and appears to have received all his homages and services.

An Out Rent, etc.

There is yearly paid out of the Lordship of Steeton to the bailiff of the lands, late St. John of Jerusalem, 12d. by three of the lord's tenants, Robert Hall, John Hall and Anthony Fox, 4d. each out of their tenements in Steeton, in consideration of which the said tenants shall have their last will proved by the officer of the said lands at the Redj Hall in the parish of Glusburn (perhaps Royd¹⁵ House in the township of Glusburn) at a certain reasonable rate, and that they should also be free in certain fairs. They also appear at the court holden at the said Redj Hall, and pay their money to the owner of the said house. John Eastburn, the lord's tenant in Eastburn, doth likewise pay to the bailiff of the lands aforesaid, 14d. per annum, and by the like cause and consideration aforesaid.

N.B.— The aforesaid money is paid by the tenants besides their accustomed rents.

Town Terme and Heriots

The lord's tenants within the said Manor of Steeton are, and have been accustomed time out of memory of man, to pay unto the Lord at every ten years' end, one whole year's rent besides their accustomed rent. This is commonly called Town Terme, the which, together with other Heriots hereafter mentioned, is paid in consideration of the fines on the Grassemes of their tenements

The same tenants, or the most part of them, do also pay unto the lord Heriots, viz., at the death of him or her, that is the lord's tenant, and the principal of every household, the best goods they have at the said house for a Heriot, and some 6d, as they have been accustomed; and in order that it may appear the clearer from what tenements the same is now paid, the names, rents, and Heriots will be found in the following account, being the rents paid by the tenants of Steeton and Eastburn, a.d. 1583.

Demaynes

Formerly, in the sixteenth century, Steeton would be the second township in point of size in Kildwick parish, for we read that in 1513, the number of men that were summoned by Lord Clifford from the parish of Kildwick to attend him to the wars which culminated in the battle of Flodden Field were as follows:

Besides, it is found in the Court Baron Rolls for the year 1545 that 40 persons paid suit and service, and in 1591 there are 45 persons performing the same offices. But after the Garforths got possession of Steeton there appears to have been a considerable decrease, unless the other towns in the parish had been rapidly progressing in the interval which is improbable. This will be more apparent from a document which was in the possession of Miss Currer of Eshton Hall. This document mentions that in the year 1658, a general meeting was called at Kildwick to make an assessment for the relief of the poor of the parish, and in which all the rate-payers of each township are separately mentioned, and the money each has to pay. The following extract shows that Steeton at this time, instead of being second on the list is now placed in the back position of one-sixth.

Steeton receding from its position of second to the sixth place in the parish appears strange, as there does not appear to have been any particular mortality here more than in any other part of the parish. On examining the Kildwick Parish Registers, it is found that the plague was prevalent in 1604, and again with greater severity in 1623-4, when 114 persons were buried in seven months, the yearly average being about sixty; but in both these cases it seems to have been spread generally about the parish, each village was more or less affected by it. The probable solution of the cause of the decrease is, that under the Cliffords in 1683, there were a great many tenants with small holdings, and that the Garforths, after they came into possession of the estate, thought it more advantageous to throw two or, perhaps three of these little farms together. The Garforths and Currers, the two largest owners of land in Steeton, kept a great proportion of their land in their own possession, which will be seen by the following:- that Mr. Garforth paid 5s. 4d., and Mr. Currer 2s. 8d., out of a total of £1 4s. 6d., nearly one-third of the whole township. The population of Steeton with Eastburn in 1881 was 1497, being now the fourth township in point of population in the parish, Silsden, Cowling, Glusburn being larger.

We have now got to the time when the Garforths have got to be proprietors of land in Steeton; as has before been stated, they purchased the manor of Steeton and Glusburn from the heirs-general of the Plumptons. The first Garforth in connection with Steeton on record is Richard Garforth, who was probably born in or about 1470. This Richard was at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513; he went with horse and harness, which is almost a certain proof that he was a gentleman, and lived at the Manor House. There was a John Garforth, who is supposed to be his brother, and six other persons that accompanied him. Dennis Garforth, or, as he is called in the court-rolls, Dyonisius Garforth, who married a Thornhill of Burley, near Otley, and who died in 1579 aged 80, is supposed to be the son of the above Richard; he lived at Steeton Hall, and his name appears first with the title of officer prefixed on the court-rolls for more than thirty years. Anthony, his son, married Alice, the daughter of Sir Edmund Mauleverer, of Arncliffe, near Northallerton; by this marriage the pedigree of the Garforths can be traced to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, son of Edward III, King of England. This Anthony died in 1587. The son of Anthony¹⁶, William, married Rosamund Rawson, of Shipley; he purchased the manor, which has been previously alluded to. Though the Garforths had lived at the hall a century before this, they were tenants, not the owners of the property. The first purchase made by the Garforths was in 1600, when they bought one quarter of the manor of Steeton and Glusburn for £460 10s. 0d., of William Oglethorpe, Esq., of Roundhay, near Leeds. It is not known what the Garforths gave for three quarters of the manor, but if it be reckoned at the same rate as was given for the one quarter that we do know, the total would be £1842. It is known that there was only a small quantity of land that went with the manor of Glusburn, so it is very probable that the manor and the lands belonging to it of Steeton and Eastburn at the beginning of the seventeenth century was bought for about £1700. What quantity of land went with the manor of Steeton is not known exactly, but it is very probable from what is known that it would be less than half the township. The reason why it is concluded that not one-half of the township was bought with the manor at the beginning of the seventeenth century is, that in 1787, J.B. Garforth's share of the expense of the enclosure of common was £306 14s. 11d. out of the total of £802 15s. 6d., and that they alienated any of their property in the interval is not known¹⁷, and is improbable.

Division of Steeton Common by Act of Parliament¹⁸ obtained in the year 1787.

–––––––––––––

                                                                                                    s.  dec.

Allowance for Roads, Quarries, &c                                      60.067

            "                  Manorial Rights                                     352.129

            "                  Proprietors below                                 3873.349

                                                                                                4285.545

After William Garforth, the purchaser of the manor, came another William Garforth¹⁹ his son, who married Jenet, daughter of Thomas Emmott, of Emmott Hall; he died 1669. Then there was Anthony Garforth, who was born 1610, and died 1670, son of the last William. William Garforth had, besides others, a son Edmund²⁰, who was Vicar of Kildwick and Vicar of Gargrave 1660-73. Steeton Hall was rebuilt in 1662, and the names of the preceding are yet to be seen over the kitchen window. Anthony Garforth married Susan, daughter of Thomas Crossley, of Hullenedge, near Halifax.

Of this Garforth we have recorded the following incident:- At York on January 31st, 1664-5, John Hoyle, of Keighley, saith before Sir John Armitage "that a month or five weeks before the discovery of the late plot, he heard Mr. Anthony Garforth, of Steeton, say, ‘I desire you to lend me £10.’ The informant told him he had it not. Then Mr. Garforth said, ‘If he had it not he would have it somewhere, for he would have £10 or £20 by him, for there will be such a stir as never was yet, for the king hath declared himself to be a Roman Catholic and hath gone to mass with the queen.’ And said he held the declaration in his pocket. He would have declared the above to Mr. Justice Wade, but that he was interrupted by Lieutenant-Colonel Malham." He was fined £20, bound in £200, and in £100 each of Edmund Garforth, of Gargrave, Clerk (Vicar of Gargrave and his brother), and William Garforth, of Gargrave, Gent.

There is recorded another incident of the seventeenth century in connection with Steeton:- Jeremiah Denby, of Steeton, was indicted at York for saying at Kildwick, 26th July, 1684, to Richard Pollard, Clerk (Vicar of Kildwick 1678-97), "The king himself is a great favourer of Anabaptists, and those are the best Christians that come least to church, for all I know."

Anthony Garforth had a son William²¹, who married firstly a Miss Rishworth, of Morton, and then Mrs. Dixon, of Sutton. Edmund²², son of the last-named William, married Elizabeth Grandorge, of Skipton (she was buried at Kildwick 1742); he was born in 1677, and died on July 2nd, 1722, leaving two sons²³, Edward and Thomas. Thomas the younger son, died a.d. 1743, unmarried.

The last Edward Garforth²⁴, who died about 1760, left the property to his nephew John Baynes, the son of his sister Elizabeth (she was buried at Kildwick Sept. 9th, 1740), who had married Ralph Baynes, Esq., of Mewith Head Hall, near Bentham. The nephew, John Baynes, had to take the name of Garforth, which he afterwards did. He was educated at Skipton Grammar School, and articled to an attorney at Carlisle; he also became agent or steward for Sir James Lowther, under whose patronage he became member of Parliament for Appleby or Cockermouth.

He was displaced to make way for the celebrated statesman, William Pitt. Sir James Lowther, hearing that William Pitt, then a promising young man, had been defeated in a contest for the representation of the University of Cambridge, caused an attorney in the north, John Baynes Garforth, to vacate his seat to make room for him. To be superseded by one who afterwards became such a celebrated statesman can hardly be considered a discredit. John Baynes Garforth, up to middle life, lived in Cumberland, and afterwards in London, where he was a solicitor. It is not certain that he ever lived at Steeton²⁵. He left an only son Thomas, who married²⁶ Catherine, daughter of the Rev. Robert Graham, of Netherby, and aunt to Sir James Graham, the statesman. The Grahams were then, and are now, a family of great estate in Cumberland; their seat was at Netherby, and are often alluded to by Sir Walter Scott, the Grahams being a Border Clan. The Grahams are alluded to in the following poem:-

Young Lochinvar.

Oh! Young Lochinvar is come out of the west,

Through all the wide border his steed was the best;

And save his good broadsword, he weapon had none,

He rode all unarmed, and he rode all alone;

So faithful in love, and so dauntless in war,

There never was knight like the young Lochinvar.

He stayed not for brake, he stopped not for stone,

He swam the Eske river where ford there was none;

But ere he alighted at NETHERBY GATE,

The bride had consented, the gallant came late:

For a laggard in love and a dastard in war

Was to wed the fair Ellen of young Lochinvar. etc.

By his marriage with a Graham, he is said to have got a considerable fortune. Soon after his marriage he made fortunate purchases at Steeton. He bought land at Redcar and at Eastburn, and he bought the Upper Hall and property with it which had been the property of the Currers, and which about thirty years after sold for more than three times its cost. By this purchase the Steeton estate was nearly doubled in size and value. The following is an account of the purchase²⁷:-

Particulars of Land, formerly the possessions of the Currers, bought by Thomas Garforth, Esq., of Steeton Hall, from the devizes of the late Mrs. Hudson, about 1784-5

This estate with a rental of £221 4s. 0d. was bought for £7500 in 1784-5-6.

Also soon after the marriage, they took up their residence at Steeton Hall, where they continued to live until the time of his death in 1811. It was he that made alterations about the hall. About this time (1780-90) the ornamental wall on Hawkcliffe top was erected; the carriage drive going in at the Chinese gates was made; the cascades were laid out, which were then teeming with fish; he pulled down several cottages in the field in which the church now stands; he also pulled down several cottages on each side of the brook below the bridge, near the corn-mill; he laid out the Flats, and he planted a great many trees in the village.

Before then, the Flats²⁸ consisted of a lot of two or three acre fields, but after then it consisted of one piece of fifty-nine acres. It was bounded by the river, the hall, and the Elm Farm; the present Park House Farm was part of the Old Flats, and that row of trees going down to Park House are supposed to have been planted with the intention of have an entrance to the hall there. However, Steeton Hall was sold to the Sugdens in 1819, who afterwards carved down the Flats to its present dimensions of about 29 acres. Park House was built by Mr. William Sugden about 1832, and derived its name from the park of the hall extending so near to it. Park House, with 22 acres of land, was bought by the late Mr. Joseph Craven, of the Exors. of Mr. William Sugden in 1840.

Most people have heard the old people talk of the Chinese Gates; they were the principal entrance to Steeton Hall, and were situated between the Star Inn and the beck. The drive went from the road to the hall parallel to the beck; it is now grown over with grass, but it can be traced by looking over the wall. Soon after the new road was made to the station, about the year 1828, the drive leading from the Chinese Gates was done away with, and the present one that enters the road opposite the Summerhill Lane was made.

There must have been a house somewhere where Steeton Hall now stands for seven hundred years, as Raino de Stiveton was witness to a grant of land by the family of Allerton to Kirkstall Abbey about the year 1190; but the present house cannot go further back than a little over two hundred years. The Prior of Bolton gave a charter to Elias de Stiveton to celebrate divine service in his chapel at Steeton in the thirteenth century. This chapel is supposed to have been a domestic oratory, and probably gives rise to the tradition that a small field, now thrown into a larger field at the back of the hall, formerly was a burial ground. Upon the present house are the following inscriptions:-

The arms of the Garforth family are:- Sa. A bend between six goats passant argent; Crest, out of a mural coronet arg. a goat's head of the last. As the goat's head was the crest of the Garforths, this evidently accounts for the name of one of the public-houses. From the above dates it is evident that the hall was completely rebuilt in the seventeenth century (Michael Ogden might be the builder or the mason who worked the stone on which his name is), and it is the recollection of most people that half of it was rebuilt in 1863, when the late Mr. John Craven took it on a lease. Belonging to the house is a horn; about this horn there is supposed to be a charm. The story is that if it were taken away, the ghosts of departed owners of the place, and of suicides, of which it is known that two have taken place inside the house, would make their appearance. In the flats, in front of the house are the remains of a cock-pit, which will, no doubt, have been the scene of many a fight.

The above-mentioned Thomas Garforth was an active magistrate; he had been brought up a barrister, though it is not known that he ever practised. This training was of great advantage to him as a magistrate; he presided when present, and his decisions carried weight with them. This accounts for him being generally called "Justice Garforth." Many a culprit has received his sentence from him at the hall or at the "Goat." Then was ample scope for his abilities, for in 1793 war broke out against France. It was during these times that the village was a busy centre; enlisting and balloting was carried out with vigour the length and breadth of the land, and a great part of the balloting for the district of Craven was performed at Steeton. Ten years later, another French war broke out; Napoleon had assembled a great flotilla at Boulogne, and was threatening to invade England. Every town and village was astir; Craven mustered 1400 volunteers called the "Craven Legion," of which Lord Ribblesdale was Colonel and Mr. Thomas Garforth was Lieutenant-Colonel.

A month was spent at York every year with his regiment for training, and in the intermediate time the men were frequently called to exercise. More than once might have been seen three hundred men drawn up in the park in front of the old mansion accompanied by a band of music. At one time the whole of the officers of the Craven Legion were banqueted in the large dining-room when the band of the regiment was playing.

Mr. Garforth kept a pack of hounds, kept gamekeepers, and lived in a fashion more resembling a nobleman than a country squire; it may be said that he resembled the "fine old English gentleman, one of the olden time." His hospitality was great; strangers that called there were rarely sent empty away. Any caller was generally greeted: "sit down, friend;" a pitcher with eatables was brought, and many a thirsty person has had the jug more than once refilled. This was not an isolated case.

Instead of retrenchment he had more servants, erected hot-houses, and put two more horses to his carriage. Old Jonathan writes:- "it was a fine sight to us in our younger days to see Mr. Garforth’s carriage pass on their way to church; the footman, coachman, and postillion all in new white liveries faced with scarlet, and the carriage drawn by four beautiful bright bay horses."

This continued a short time. In 1810 property was sold of the value of £18,000, which extricated him from his difficulties. During his embarrassed circumstances his health broke down both physically and mentally. He died the following year, December 6th, 1811, aged 56 years. He was buried in the chancel of Kildwick Church, where a tablet²⁹ is now to be read to his memory. On the same day there were two funerals from Steeton Hall - the squire and old butler; both ended their days about the same time; the master was buried inside the church in the morning, and the servant in the yard in the afternoon. He was the last of the Garforths who was Lord of the Manor of Steeton.

After his death the whole of his remaining property was sold and divided among his children, and the property that the family have since possessed was repurchased at the sale. His eldest son was John James Garforth, who married Sarah, the daughter of Mr. Thomas Pearson, of Steeton; he was born September 17th, 1791, and died December 21st, 1819. His son Thomas married a daughter of William Sugden, Esq., of Eastwood House, and was born in 1818, and died June 16th, 1853 (the present Mr. Garforth is his son). A pedigree of the family is in Whitaker’s History of Craven.

––––––––––––––

Particulars of Land sold at Steeton belonging to T. Garforth, Esq., June 19th and 20th, 1810.

Property of the late Thomas Garforth, Esq., sold December 16th, 1818.