Notes on probable Collier properties in Hattersley

The properties under discussion are the farms called Fields (lease 4A), Lane (lease to be determined), Pinfold (lease 6 or lease 14), Court House (lease 8B and 24) and one of four farms at Greenside (leases13, 23, 12 and undetermined).

The starting point is the analysis of land taxes 1780 to 1831 by Mr J.E.Lloyd showing the various lease-holders over this period and the taxes paid, together with the lease numbers and farm names (as given in at least one tax document. More detail of the holdings is given in the Tithe Apportionment of around 1840) which gives the lease-holder, occupier, each plot in the holding (name and map number, land use, and area in statute measure), and tithe. Many of the groups of plots in this document are headed with the name of the farm, but several are not. Another detailed source is a collection of valuations of leased holdings, a few each year from 1774 to 1796. These also give the constituent plot names and areas, as well as their values but, unfortunately, many of the plot names and areas are different from the tithe details. Another complication with this and earlier documents is that the areas are given in Cheshire measure, which have to be multiplied by about 2.2 to obtain the equivalent statute areas.

To relate this detailed nineteenth century and late eighteenth century information to a survey of Hattersley in 1700 or 1701 via a group of early land tax records from 1712 to 1715, a number of relationships have been established and assumptions made. Firstly, apart from the taxes in 1713-15 being about half of those of other years, the taxes appear to have been approximately constant. Thus, many land taxes in 1780 appear to be 1.055 times those of 1712. It was this principle that enabled Mr Lloyd to trace properties between 1780 and 1831. Where appreciable differences occur, it may be assumed that there has been a change in area of the holding. Then, although land taxes were not proportional to areas, this seems to have been approximately true in Hattersley, where areas and taxes can be compared at closely similar dates. Thus, for many holdings, multiplying the tithe apportionment area in statute acres by 8.615 gives an amount similar to the tax assessment of 1831 in pence. This gives a way of tracing holdings through their areas. A further complication arises, however, when testing this relationship on the basis of the 1712 land tax and the areas of holdings given in the 1701 survey. One would expect to have to multiply the areas in Cheshire acres by 8.615×2.2 = 18.95 to obtain a rough estimate of the tax in pence. In fact a multiplier of 27.3 is found to be needed for many of the 1701 properties where continuity of family ownership of leases between 1701 and 1712 can be assumed. This discrepancy is more than can be attributed to change in tax level between 1712 and 1831 in view of the approximate constancy of tax just referred to and suggests that later Cheshire acres have to be multiplied by about 0.7.to obtain the equivalent number of 1701 acres. These relationships, and the frequent continuity of family names in lease ownership over an extended period, are used below in an attempt to trace Collier properties between 1700 and 1840 even after they themselves had moved away.

Before 1701, there are lists of tenants (including ‘suit of court’ lists in 1621,1634, 1689 and 1692) with little further data that allow identification of their properties, though the hearth taxes of 1664, 1673 and 1674, and ‘fines’ (either rents or payments on taking up a lease) quoted with the 1621 court list give a little indication of size. However, since there were usually two Collier families in Hattersley with similar forenames, they were often distinguished by the farm they occupied, i.e. Fields and Lane in the seventeenth century. The tracing Collier properties can therefore begin in the parish registers about 1600.

The earliest mentions of these farms so far found are in the burial records of the wife of Robert Collier of Fields (19 July 1598), Widow Collier of Lane (9 November 1600) and Edward Collier senior of Fields (4 January 1601/2). The 1621 court list includes Robert Colyar de Lane (fine 8s.6d.) and Robert Colier de Fyeles [Fields] (fine 12s.2d.). The jury service lists for each individual court sitting show no attendance by Robert of Fields from 1621 onwards (so, perhaps he died around then) and the last attendance for Robert of Lane was in 1629. By the time of the 1634 court list, covering the period up to 1657, Lane is first represented by Elizabeth Collier (widow, presumably of Robert) and then by Robert Collier (their son, baptised 21 September 1606), and Fields is represented first by the wife (not named) of Robert Collier (probably son of the previous Robert of Fields) deceased and then by the wife (again unnamed) of John Dewsnopp These wives might be the same person since it may have been Robert baptised 19 September 1602 as son of Robert Collier of Fields who married Anne Brerely on 14 May 1638, and it was an Anne Collier (who could be the widow of Robert) who married John Dewsnop on 16 April 1655. . [Later note: Apparently these records are confusingly written and it may be that ‘wife of’ was added later to Robert, who may have represented Fields in the first part of the period 1634 to 1657 before he died after marrying in 1638. No appropriate burial record has yet been found.] In any case it looks as though Fields was no longer leased by Colliers from about this time. The farm has continued under the name of Fields under different leaseholders up to the present day. Meanwhile an Arthur Collier started to appear on jury lists in 1625 and continued up to at least 1639. Though leasing land in Hattersley (since there is reference to Arthur Collier’s meadow in the court records), there is no mention of a farm belonging to him and he is probably the Arthur Collier senior of Newton Hall buried on 9 June 1669. His eligibility for jury service (presumably linked to land occupation in Hattersley) may have finished long before that, since he was replaced on the jury list before the end of the period 1634 to 1657 by Edward Hoult.

The first mention of the Collier farm Pinfold is in the Jury list for 7 August 1639 when Robert Collier of Pinfold is on the list as well as Robert of Lane. Robert of Pinfold may have been the one mentioned above, baptised on 19 September 1602 as son of Robert of Fields. Robert of Lane was probably the son of Elizabeth mentioned above, baptised in 1606. By the time of the court lists covering 1689 to 1699, Pinfold is still represented by a Robert, but probably the one baptised on 17 March 1638/9 (likely to be the son of the previous Robert of Pinfold, though the father was only described then as of Hattersley). The other Collier entry, which must be for Lane, is that of Edward Collier, followed by Phoebe. Edward was probably the son of Robert of Hattersley (though almost certainly of Lane, baptised 1606) and he married Phoebe Johnson on 31 December 1675 and was buried 8 September 1690. Phoebe owed a heriot to the lord of the manor (a payment on death of the head of the family) in 1692.

In the survey of Hatterley in 1701, widow Phoebe Collier leased 9 acres and Robert Collier, a husbandman, leased 7 acres. These must be the farms Lane and Pinfold, respectively and their relative areas are reflected in the two land tax assessments in 1712, £1.0.5¼ (245.25 d.) for Robert Collier de Lane and 15s.10½d. (190.5 d.) for Robert Collier of Pinfold. The ratio of these two assessments (1.287) is almost exactly that of the two areas (1.286), and both correspond to a tax of 27.2 d. per 1701 Cheshire acre (very close to the usual factor mentioned above for 1701) or about 19 d. per later Cheshire acre or about 8.6 d. per statute acre. Comparing the latter with the 8.615 factor, by which tithe assessment areas in statute acres had to be multiplied by to obtain an estimate of the 1831 land tax, shows that there had not been much variation in the level of tax between 1712 and 1831. (A 1.055 times increase from 1712 to 1780 was noted above.) If there were no changes in the areas of the farms Lane and Pinfold, they would be expected to occupy about 13 and 10 normal Cheshire acres in 1780 and their lease-holders would be expected to pay land taxes of about 259 d. (£1.1s.7d.) and 201 d. (16s.9d.) respectively.

To return to the tracing of lease-holders, the Robert de Lane paying tax in 1712 would be the known son of Edward and Phoebe baptised 6 September 1681 and buried about 1737. He would have taken over responsibility for Lane when his mother died in 1706. The gap between the 1712-15 and the 1780 land taxes is the largest time gap without full lists of tenants. Fortunately there are valuations of leases renewed between 1774 and 1796 which give lease numbers, lease holder, the plots owned with areas (Cheshire measure), value per acre, value of each plot, and total value. (See the example of lease 14, below.) Unfortunately, there is no consistent ratio between values and land tax assessment. Apart from these, it is necessary to rely on comparison of areas and/or land taxes and on indications of property remaining within the same family, to trace the lease holders. It is within this gap that the Collier families leave Lane and Pinfold so different leaseholders paying the approximately deduced land taxes must be sought. There were three leaseholders paying exactly £1.1s.7d. in 1780 (corresponding to three properties of area 9 acres in 1701, leased by Thomas Butterworth, Phoebe Collier and Isaac Higham, and three land tax assessments of £1.0.5¼ in 1712 paid by Mr Thomas Butterworth, Robert Collier and Isaac Higham). These 1780 tax payers were John Howard, Bezaliah Butterworth and Isaac Shaw. John Howard held lease 27 in 1797 with an area of 12ac.3r. 28p. It had belonged to Sally Bretland in 1774 and was one of two (or possibly more) properties known as Rhodes Fold by 1831. Lease 13 had recently been Butterworth’s prior to being renewed in 1782 with an area of 14ac. 3r. 2p. Mr. Lloyd’s analysis of land taxes from 1780 to 1831 shows the property to be known by then as Butterworth’s, though it was one of four properties also known as Greenside. The area by 1816 was 13ac.1r. 3p. in Cheshire measure. The property for which Isaac Shaw paid land tax in 1780 was identified by Mr Lloyd as another of the Greenside properties. The area was 12ac. 2r.26p. in 1770 and 14.0.12 by the time the lease holder was Abraham Jackson, who held lease 22 from 1841. In view of the continuity of the Butterworth name from at least 1712 to 1780, the property known as Butterworth’s can be discounted as a former Collier property. Of the other two properties with the right area and tax liability, the one associated with the Rhodes and Bretland families (under lease 27) is the one more likely to have been the Collier property Lane, since the Colliers were linked by marriage to both these families.

The 1827 land tax records show two properties labelled Pinfold, with payments 18s.0d. and 12s.0d., which would correspond to areas of about 11.4 and 7.6 normal Cheshire acres, respectively, or 7.9 and 5.3 acres in 1701 (using the multipliers mentioned above). Unless there have been major changes in the areas associated with these properties, the larger one of these two appears to be the one for which Robert Collier of Pinfold paid 15s.10½d. (190.5 d.) in 1712, his property having a recorded area of 7 acres in 1701.Mr Lloyd’s analysis of land taxes from 1780 to 1831 shows this property to be held under lease 14 with William Chadwick as lessee from 1780 to 1786. It may be significant that from 1820 to 1831, lease 14 was held by John Vaudrey of Bredbury who had married Ally Collier at Stockport on 23 May 1801.

Lease 14 corresponds to a group of plots numbered 77 to 87 on a map of Hattersley which Mr. Lloyd identifies as of date 1857. In the tithe apportionment list these plots have a total area in statue measure 22ac.0r.36p. and are leased by James Chadwick. The details are as follows:

The plots belonging to Thomas Chadwick, the owned of lease 14 when it was renewed in 1788 were recorded as follows:

(The final column shows the probable tithe plot number)

It can be seen that a few of the plot names have changed and many of the areas. The discrepancies are appreciated when the normal conversion factor 2.2 is used to generate the statute area column. However, the total area is very similar to that shown in the tithe apportionment.

Lease 27, the most likely for the Collier farm Lane, corresponds to the plots numbered 354 to 372 on the tithe apportionment list, headed Rhodes Fold. They are detailed as follows (lessee Thomas Howard, occupier James Williamson; areas in statute measure:

The corresponding details in the valuation document (lessee John Howard, areas in normal Cheshire acres) are as follows:

(The final column shows the probable tithe plot number)

This list of plots seems to lack Hillside (plot 355, area 2.3.22 = 462 p.) and Squire Meadow (plot 369, area 1.1.23 = 223 p.) or their equivalents renamed. Subtracting these areas from the tithe list total (33.0.21) gives 28.3.16 which agrees as well as might be expected with the valuation area total (12.3.28) multiplied by 2.2 (28.1.30).

It is interesting that the valuation list includes the plot called Judd Croft which, in the tithe apportionment document is called Grid Croft (surely a corruption of the same name) because the court rolls (1621 to 1699) imply that an area called Jud croft or Judge croft is associated with the Collier family. However, the tithe list also has a Jud Croft (plot 249 which, on the 1857 map, is adjacent to plot 371) associated with a property called Court House, which can be identified with leases 8b and 24. The group of properties which includes 249 is not labelled with a property name on the tithe list but the total area of the group (238 to 248 and 252 that can elsewhere be identified with lease 24, and 249 to 251 and 253 to 258 associated with lease 8b) is 47ac.0r.12p. which is too large to have been the Collier property Lane. On the other hand the valuation list shows the lease 8b properties to total 11ac.2r.6p. (normal Cheshire measure) which is not very far from the area of Lane, though much less likely than lease 27, discussed above. When lease 8b was renewed in 1843, it was described as being formerly held by Edward Collier (crossed out), Silas Rhodes, and now Thomas Williamson. The lease surrendered, dating from 21 July 1786, had been held on the lives of John Rhodes (since deceased), John (son of Thomas) Fallows at Bramall, yeoman, and Robert Collier (since deceased) of whom only John Fallows was still surviving in 1843. From the date of death, the most probable Robert Collier, mentioned here, is the one baptised on 3 November 1713 at Gee Cross and buried 15 June 1782. His will, dated 23 February 1782 and proved 19 September 1782, mentions leasehold premises in Brinnington and Bredbury. The Edward who formerly owned lease 8b in Hattersley was probably his brother baptised probably on 6 May 1711 and died 20 August 1791 (buried 12 September 1791 at Marple, who had been bequeathed his father’s Hattersley estate in the will of Robert Collier in 1737. It is this Edward who moved to Bosden and then to Marple, possibly thereby terminating any association between the Collier family and the property called Court House, through lease 8b.

The association of Colliers with one of the Greenside properties arises from a letter received from a lady living in one of the four farms in recent years. She sent details of a Collier family living there as noted in the 1861 census. It seemed likely that this was a separate branch of the Colliers from those who had lived in Hattersley in former times. It is therefore left to follow up later.