Troubled Times

                 Barstow asked “Do you ever sleep with firearms loaded?” –“Always”.

In the 1840s the disputes between Unions and manufacturers started to take a more militant turn due to several factors.  The population was expanding rapidly in Sheffield and production was on the increase, but the Journeyman had been replaced with young cheap labour without apprenticeships or job security. Going on strike could mean you not only lost your  pay but also could see you in court for breach of contract.

From the management side trade was very up and down and it often proved hard to have sustained periods of work. Cuts were made where they could and that usually meant the older more experienced worker being replaced. Extreme weather, poor harvests and the threat of the Workhouse made working men desperate.

drive band

The main way of making a protest beside walking out was sabotage known as Rattening. Non union workers found tools disappearing or the bands from the wheel removed with a note left behind suggesting if they paid their union dues they might find their tools in a certain spot. Quite possibly Rattening had always been a way of protesting against an employer before this period when even grouping together to discuss pay could find you in Jail.   Early examples of Rattening did no long lasting damage but as time went on rattening was more a case of attacking wheels and manufacturers who had none Union labour or unqualified men. This more violent behaviour was referred to as the “Outrages”.

Globe Works

In 1859, when the saw grinder, James Linley, was accused by the union of taking on too many apprentices, he was followed around Sheffield for several weeks before being shot and killed. Two years later, a house in Acorn Street was attacked with gunpowder and an innocent lodger was killed. In 1860 Dronfield works had several arson attacks and bellows were shredded.

But violence did not only come from the Union side. A group of women Buffers in 1859 complained about their employer using thugs with clubs to beat up any union man that tried to approach their company. They walked out and found themselves in court for breach of contract.  The courts described these 30 year old married women as “foolish virgins” and sent them back to work to work off their notice.

By 1867 due to pressure from people , including  Joshua Tyzack , who had formed a deputation to  lobby parliament, Gladstone, the Prime Minister   instigated a Royal Commission Inquiry.  Considering this extreme violence had been going on for 25 years this would seem a somewhat slow response. Rattening  and Intimidation  had driven some manufacturers out of business and caused uncertain employment and fear for the ordinary law abiding worker. Most probably the commission came about more as a means for gathering evidence about Trade Unions. Surprisingly a number of positive laws for Trade Unions were made in the next few years.

In 1871 the law gave Unions official recognition, another laws by making embezzlement of  Union funds illegal also meant all expenditure had to be accounted for. Workers were also allowed to prosecute their employer for breach of contract and picketing was legalised.

The Enquiry seemed to have had very little impact on the practice of rattening as many more incidents were reported in the papers after the enquiry.

1868 bands were removed from the Leather Wheel in Whitely Woods.

          Little London Wheel broke into and 3 bands removed

1870  Norton Hammer 4 wheelbands destroyed

1871 Norton Hammer was attacked and six wheel bands destroyed.  

1872 Linnekers works was broken into and bands were removed.

 Whirlow wheel glazing bands and drive band were removed.

 1874  Norton Hammer was again attacked and bolts were removed from the machinery.  

Norton Hammer Cottages

On the whole the more extreme violent action does seem to have died out though in 1881 two men were arrested while they were attempting to blow up the Staniforth works at Hackenthorpe.

In the Enquiry Joshua stated that only about 1 in 50 incidents were reported and he had little faith in anything being pursued.

There would appear to be only one case reported in the papers. In 1847  a woman scissor manufacturer Mrs. Sarah Shackley took the  treasurer of the Scissor makers Union, John Wreaks, to court for intimidation. It  was argued that as she  was a woman  and as the statute was written referring to only male gender he should be acquitted.  The court made no such distinctions and he was found guilty and sentenced to 3 months hard labour.

 

Joshua Tyzack’s account of the shooting seems to be strangely accepting of the situation.

How do you generally go home? — I formerly used to ride on horseback, afterwards I took a gig, and since then I have gone in the phaeton.

What time did you usually return? — About half past eight.

What occurred when you were shot at? How far had you got from Sheffield? — About three quarters of a mile.

That was just beyond Broadfield Bar, in a small plantation? What happened?— I heard a shot fired.  

What followed? — Another shot immediately. I looked in the direction they came from; the moment I turned I saw a flash of a third shot.

Was it from a man in the road or in the field? — From under a broken down fence near Mr Cockayne’s residence.

Did anything follow? —Immediately I saw the flash, a bullet went through the brim of my hat and knocked a piece out the size of half-a-crown.

What happened then? —I was thoroughly unconscious for the moment.

Did you continue standing as you were? —No, I dropped down from the excitement of the passing of the shot through the hair and hat.

Were you knocked down? —No, it was excitement, momentary excitement; I dropped down into the bottom of the gig.

Could you tell what the shot was from? — I think it was a revolver.

Is that from the fact of there being several shots, or from the noise? — From the number of shots that were sent.

Do you know how long you were at the bottom of the gig? — It would be difficult to say, perhaps thirty or forty seconds.

Then you recovered yourself? — My impulse dictated that I should go.

What did you do? — I struck the horse a violent blow.

And what else happened? — There were two other shots as quickly upon each other as possible as soon as the horse got into action.

The enquiry asked why he hadn’t reported the shooting to the police.

You never communicated it to the police although you had been shot at five times? —

No, I had good reason. I had only recently married, and my wife was a stranger here, and she was unsettled  and unhappy.

So you wished to keep it concealed from her? — Yes.

Did she know that you were shot at? — Not till about a month after, when I gradually broke the matter to her.

That seems a very poor reason for not communicating it to the police; did you not think it your duty to come forward and try to find out the offender? — I do not see what  advantage that could give anyone.

Do you think that you behaved in a manner consistent with your duty in not prosecuting the affair? — I saw no chance of redress.

You took no means to find out? — I thought further investigation would be fatal to me.

Did you think that a manly course to be deterred by fear from doing what you were bound to do? — That was the course I took, and a straightforward course too.

It was a straightforward course one way but it was a straightforward course backwards. When the men had left without notice, had you taken out a summons against them? —No, because we are thoroughly cowed by the operation that is practised towards us. I did not for the same reason that I spoke about in the shooting case.

Does not it strike you that if the perpetrators of these outrages had known that you would prosecute them vigorously, they might have been thoroughly cowed? — I believe that out of the number of cases occurring in Sheffield in reference to trade disputes there is not one in fifty that goes to our bench, for they are perfectly powerless in the matter.

Are you a magistrate? — I am.

In February 1867 three months before the enquiry  Joshua Tyzack did prosecute George Peace for assaulting him at the Little London Works. George Peace was later to appear at the enquiry accused of conspiring with Broadhead  to have Elisha Parker put out of the picture,  although direct collusion was never proved.

The image that comes across from the Enquiry and the Newspapers is of a lawless town in the Wild West where even the sheriff is too scared. A savage time. Not only savage in respect of trade union outrages but in the deaths of ordinary working men going about their work.

Grindstones

In 1834 John Swift grinder, was killed by a breaking  of a grinding stone at Whiteley Woods Wheel

In 1847 another grinder was killed at the Little London Works when the grinding wheel shattered and pieces hit him in the head. This was not an uncommon happening. In the case of this stone it was thought that the stone was badly stored and had absorbed water so making the wheel unbalanced.

‘1.Most cases come under the first head. The makers at the quarry put down as the workers faulty, being piece workers , try to hide a flaw or crack if they can. The quarryman ought to be paid for the work he has done, whether there is a flaw in the stone or not. Thinks that the quarrymen 9 times out of 10 know the cause of the breaking of the stone . Even the grinders will take the risk and work with a defective stone in the hope it will not fly.  Re dressing is a very bad practice. They take the flaw out and make it look new. They ought to sell the stones as re dressed not new. 2. Under the second head stones are left exposed to the weather in the store, both at the quarry, at the merchants , and at the grinders. The stone absorbs moisture at the bottom, and if heavier at one end bumps and breaks.   3. Imperfect bedding of the plates act so the side surface of the stone is not even. The pressure put on cracks it. Many sickle-grinders ‘ stones are thus cracked.4. If the stone is softer than the grinder requires, he runs it faster in order to get the work out of it. The softer it is the more liable to fly with overspeeding.  5. If the stone be left all night with its lower part resting in water and there should be a fire in the shop in which the top part is exposed, the stone gets out of balance, it bumps and breaks. Handed in a price list from the merchants showing that they will not be responsible for cracks or flaws. Witness feels very strongly on redressing. Would make it a criminal offence to redress a stone and sell it as new. ‘     Dangerous Trades Committee.

In 1891 a grinder was crushed under a grinding stone when they were transferring a grinding stone across an uneven ground.  Health and Safety was certainly not all it could be and in 1870 the boiler blew up killing a furnace man through Tyzack’s failure to make sure the boiler was kept fired during the cold winter months.

A slower death emerged for the Grinders.  This was caused by the dust rising from the grindstones as they worked . Grinding had once been a seasonal occupation but ,with mass production  came also grinding  all year round.  Grinders developed Grinders Asthma which generally resulted in an early death before the age of 30.

Life in general could be very dangerous.

Ethical Banking

Samuel Shore Junior died in Meersbrook House on November 16 1828 at the age of  90. His life started just before Samuel Blythe’s life ended. His father had been a pupil of Samuel Blythes and together with families such as the Roebucks had helped found the Upper Chapel. Samuel Junior was a friend of Priestley who with Samuel Blythe Junior helped found the Unitarian Church in Birmingham. The Shores like the Blythes had a long history of non-conformity and radical politics.

With radical thinking also came initiatives such as banking. The most famous Bank started with these ideals was Barclays ironically. Started by Quakers. And the TSB started by a Church of Scotland Minister. Likewise the early banks in Sheffield were set up by Quakers and Unitarians. There was a strong sense of ethical banking driven by deep religious beliefs. Banking was there to encourage thrift in the labouring classes and help advance the small manufacturer or trader. They were not essentially  profit led organisations but seen more as a public service. This idealism was both the early banks strength and their downfall.

In Sheffield and the outlying areas trade frequently fluctuated. The commissioners for poor relief found generally that admission to a workhouse when a cutler was hard pressed was not the most appropriate response as it would actually prevent him getting work.  So many workers received assistance in their own home. Banking money in the good times to see them over the hard times was therefore a habit that especially needed encouragement in Sheffield.

Some time before 1778 T & J Broadbent founded a bank at Hartshead. The Broadbents were Quakers and steel manufacturers.   Around 1770  Benjamin Roebuck of Meersbrook also founded a bank from his old home in Sheffield. His house in Meersbrook having been improved by William Fairbanks.   Benjamin had bought the Meersbrook estate and most probably Bishops House from the Blythes around 1759. Benjamin was one of 5 brothers. He had with his elder brother John and another brother started the Carron iron works in Ayrshire, and backed James Watt in his work on steam engines. John Roebuck was a remarkable chemist and is often called the father of Industrial chemistry. The Roebucks were young vital and at the heart of industrial innovation but for some perhaps just a bit too cocky. When Benjamin lost his bid for  Town Trustee to Joseph Broadbent, the Rev William Guest commented.

I think all who joined him deserve commendation, not only by choosing a much fitter man than was offered, but also by that means clipping the wings of aspiring pride and pragmaticalness. I protest those young Roebucks have the ambition of a Csar or a Pompey.”

In 1778 the Roebucks bank collapsed and by many would be seen as an example of young reckless investments. However the Broadbents bank was to follow soon after. Also the Sheffield Old bank founded by Hannah Hazlehurst and Sons had but a brief life before collapsing.  In 1774 John Shore founded Shores Bank in partnership with William Shore of Tapton Hall at Irish Cross.

Samuel Shore formerly in partnership with the Roebucks and Parkers established a new partnership of  Parker and Shore. Samuel Shore was seen as a man of probity and integrity. The Shore estates were extensive and expanding. At the collapse of Roebucks banking aspirations Samuel Shore stepped in and bought Benjamins lands and moved into Meersbook House. He brought in William Fairbanks (the son of the previous Fairbanks) to build an extension similar to the one he had built at another Shore estate in Tapton. By many the failure of other banks was down to recklessness and inexperience. The Shore and Parker family were seen as a safe pair of hands.

In 1797 the master cutler and other prominent citizens had bolstered the bank by expressing their confidence in the Shores and the rival Walkers bank. In 1802 a run on the Shores bank was halted, and yet again in 1825 and 1826 once again the prominent citizens had to stave off a crisis.  But they were only staving off the inevitable. Letters in the archives give a flavour of the personal crisis which was now in the hands of Offley Shore after Samuel’s death. Letters to the Nightingales and others to help bolster the bank and a letter saying that if the Old man didn’t see sense he would lose his friends.

What sense he was to see I don’t know. Perhaps to file for bankruptcy or just to close the bank to new investors.

SHEFFIELD- A very copious account of the causes of which have led to the stoppage of the Sheffield Old Bank, known as the firm of Messrs. Parker  Shore and Co., appears in the Sheffield Independent of Saturday, which fully confirms its original statement in noticing their suspension of payments, namely, that their stoppage was caused by the decay of the trade of  the town. When the era of  bad trade commenced, many of their customers were in debt, and they took securities, which, a few years ago, would have been considered ample, but which now, for want of trade, have sunk so low that they will not fetch half their original value. It is stated that Sheffield decays for the want of  American markets, from which her manufacturers are excluded, because the corn- law forbids an entry, and monopoly is declared to be at the root of all the mischief. Our contemporary adds, that their prospects for the year, gloomy as they were before are fearfully darkened; and that increased misery, overwhelming poor-rates, bankruptcies and insolvencies without number may be expected. The favourable circumstances in the week is, that the other banks of the town have escaped a run. They are stated to have been well prepared to have outstood the panic. The liabilities of Messrs. Parker, Shore, and Co., are stated at about £600,000., and the apparent assets at £725,000.,  but the latter sum does not include bad debts.

Lloyds Weekly London Newspaper Sunday January 29^th 1843

Within the city and beyond there was a great deal of sympathy for the Shores who were seen as honest hardworking people who were fighting against impossible odds. Rallies were held with Montgomery the poet, and  newspaper editor  spoke highly of the Shores and attributed it directly to the corn laws. Which for the most part was true though the decline had started at the end of the Napoleonic wars when demand dropped. The embargo on trade with the Americans did the rest as Sheffield’s principle market was America and Europe’s economies were far from stable in the aftermath or war and civil unrest.

Locally the aftermath of Shore/Parker bankruptcy changed the face of Norton and Heeley forever

Sheffield and Rotherham Independent reported blow by blow the demise of the Estates

The Norton Hall Estates

Fifth Day’s Sale

The sale of the extensive estates of Offley’s Shore Esq.,  was continued by Mr. Nicholson, on Saturday, at the Council Hall. The attendance was not so numerous as on some of the preceding days, but the competition for the various lots was of a more animated character. Mr. Nicholson opened this days sale by offering the whole of the estate situate in Yorkshire, and containing 124 acres , in one lot, but there being no bidder, the estate was the offered in the following 17 lots :-

Lot 1.-About 270 yards of land, near the Heeley toll bar, occupied as a garden. The biddings for this small lot commenced at £10, and lay between Mr. W. Boot  and Mr. Siddall, until they reached £20. Mr. John Smith then competed against Mr. Boot, and by alternate biddings between them, the price was increased to £45, (or after the rate of £800 per acre,)  at which Mr. Boot became the purchaser.

Lot 2.-  Six houses and butcher’s shop, and 19 1/2 acres of land, at Heeley, with timber valued at £350. Mr. Charles Milner, (Fargate,) opened the bidding at £800. The competition, principally between Mr. Milner and Mr. Shortridge, continued until the latter gentleman was the highest bidder at £1,850. This Lot was then withdrawn, the sum offered not being equal to the reserve.

Lot 3.- Land containing 11a. 1r. 30p., at Upper Heeley, occupied by Mr. James Shipman. The highest bid was by Mr. C. Milner, £500.-Withdrawn.

Lot 4.-Cat Lane wood, at Upper Heeley, occupied by Mr. Joseph Shipman, containing 2 roods 25 perches, was bought by Mr. Boot, for £43.

And so it went on. Heeley and Norton broken up into small lots. Many did not sell immediately due to the receivers reserve on the land.

The total amount of the sale of the Shore’s estates at Broadfield and at Norton was between £50,000 and £60,000, and the offers  for lots not sold, the biddings not reaching the reserve by the Master in Chancery, was about £50,000. These offers do not include the several lots for which no offer was made, amongst which class were Norton Hall, which the park, &c., and 330 acres of land surrounding it, which formed lot one of the first day’s sales , and several other important lots. We understand that since the sale, the auctioneer has received offers for several of the lots withdrawn that exced   the amount of the reserve, and when the consent of the Master in Chancery shall have been obtained, they will be sold to the parties.      

 

Meersbrook Estate was not sold. The Misses Shores lived out their days peacefully. Bishops House and its lands seems to have been bought by them to keep it with the estate. Eventually Meersbrook was eroded away by land being sold to the developers. Plans were put forward for a housing development which would have left Meersbrook House with only a small garden and Bishops House was to be knocked down to built an access road to the new houses. Public pressure was put on the Sheffield Corporation to buy the land and create a public park. More land was sold round the edges but Sheffield Corporation bought the central core of the Estate, with Meersbrook House to become the new Ruskin Museum and also Bishops House which became the residence of Parks employees. The estates of Norton were fast disappearing. Norton Hall and estates became Graves Park. The Oaks estate, home of the Bagshawes lasted longer but is now used by a Christian Charity. The independent scythemaker/farmer disappeared as economic pressure resulted in larger manufacturing units where the skilled guild member was not required. So the Norton full of small smithies and dairy farms became no more. Only at Bolehill next to Graves Park can you get a clue of the metal working community, and nearby Cowmouth farm a glimpse of the dairy industry now gone.

The Florence Nightingale Connection

After the English Civil War the Bullock Family who had taken over the Manor of Norton found themselves in financial straits. The Bullocks had supported the Royalist cause and had expended a lot of money in that cause. The Bullocks sold up to a substantial part of the estates to Cornellius Clarke in 1666.  He bequeathed his estate to his nephew Robert Offley. Robert’s Son Stephen died in 1751 leaving a son and 2 daughters. The son died young leaving the estate to his sisters and it was through marrying Urith Offley that Samuel Shore 2nd came in possession of the Manor of  Norton.

This is where it gets complicated and confused by many. Samuel 2^nd s father also Samuel who was born in 1707 bought Meersbrook Estate but died soon  after in 1785 and Samuel 2^nd took it over with his new 2^nd Wife Lydia Flower. Hence there are 2 Samuel Shore called Samuel Shore of Meersbrook.

So where does the Nightingale connection come in. Florence’s father was originally William Edward Shore but changed his surname when he inherited his uncle Peter Nightingale’s estate. He was the son of William Shore. William Shore was the son of Samuel 1st and brother to Samuel 2nd.  Samuel 1st was Florence’s great grandfather.

Florence’s great  grandfather went to Attercliffe College and was taught by Samuel Blythe. The Shores together with the Blythes and the Roebucks helped found the Upper Chapel. Their religion and their politics were radical leading from the English Civil War and the problems of religious intolerance and a push for more say in how the country is governed. Florence’s mother was a strong campaigner for the abolition of slavery.

Legend says that Florence came to Meersbrook House to nurse a sick aunt and decided she wanted to be a nurse. Whether this is a true story it is certainly true that Florence was a regular visitor to Meersbrook House in her childhood and there was a mutual admiration between Florence and her aunts.

Florence’s cousin Offley of Norton Hall named a daughter Florence Nightingale Shore who became a nurse in the Boer War. She was murdered in 1920 but am afraid I don’t know rest of story.

The Shores of Norton were certainly a strong influence in Florence’s life taking Anglican Florence to the more Unitarian upper chapel when she visited Norton. Indeed it was her Unitarian roots that caused criticism by some of her in the Crimean as Unitarians were known as pacifists.

The Shores had a strong feeling of helping the less fortunate and their banking endeavours were more about helping the community than making themselves wealthy. They were strong supporters of the anti corn tax league. Lydia Shore, Florence’s great aunt  gave cooked meals to those too poor to have ovens and cooking facilities.

So Florence would learn that it was important to care for all people whatever rank. One wonders if Florence’s family were horrified when Florence announced her desire to nurse or whether they applauded her ambitions.

A look at the Coat of Arms of the Blythes of Norton and close family members.

  There are 3 coats of arms in Bishops House but none are connected to the occupants directly. The Blythe coat of arms can be seen on the Blythe monument at St James Church Norton. William Blythe is dressed in a long gown. It is suggested that he was a merchant due to his purse but it may be that William had charge of money rather than making it.

Interestingly William Blythe was awarded a coat of Arms in February 1486 a few months after Henry Tudor won the Battle of Bosworth. After Henry married Elisabeth of York in 1486, his second action was to declare himself king retroactively from the day before Bosworth Field. This meant that anyone who had fought for Richard against him would be guilty of treason.  At the same time, he almost immediately afterwards issued an edict that any gentleman who swore fealty to him would, notwithstanding any previous attainder, be secure in his property and person.

The words of William’s award are.

To all true Christian people etc. I John More otherwise called Norroy, principall herauld and kinge of arms of the North part of this realm send due and humble recommendations etc. Equitie, will and reason ordayneth etc. And therefore I sayd kinge of armes etc. Assertayned that William Blythe of Norton in the Countie of Derby hath continued in virtue etc. And for ye remembrance of his gentleness virtue and ability etc by the vertue of myne office, I the said kinge of arms have devysed, ordained and assigned unto and for the sayd  William Blythe for him and his posteritie ye arms hereafter following, that is to say he beareth ermine, three roebucks gules, armed or and also his crest  a roebucks head as aforesaid, rased of three points in a wreath ermine and gules, a garland of lorel about his necke, graunted to the sayd  William to have and to hold the same armes and creast etc. In witness whereof I sayd kinge of arms have sette to my seal of sign manuell at London on the 27^th day of February, the first year of the raignue of our Soveraigne  Lord King Henry the Seventh.

The words “in remembrance of his gentleness virtue and ability” makes me wonder if perhaps that William like many before him was a clerk, a lawyer or accountant, to an important person, possibly even in the Royal Household? There were earlier Blythes in John of Gaunts household, a clerk to King Edward l, a composer of religious music in the kings household but no obvious connections at the time of William’s award.  But we know little about William. Legend says he was married to a half sister of Thomas Rotheram Archbishop of York but no strong evidence has come to light confirming this. Williams sons were in Thomas’s service at York, (there was a long history of the Blythes as clerks at York Cathedral) and Thomas Rotherham and William Blythe’s son Richard appear jointly on land bought in Dinnington.

At the time of the award of the arms William’s sons John and Geoffrey were not Bishops. They had been both to Eton and then to Kings College Cambridge, which would imply that either money or connections were involved in getting them places there as at that time William was a Yeoman Farmer.

To some extent there are clues in the coat of arms itself.

The motto says “do not hurt one another” a very peaceful motto.

In heraldry the shield is argent meaning white which symbolizes peace and harmony, with ermine. Three roebuck gules means 3 red deer. Again deer are another sign of peace. One who will not fight unless provoked. Ermine is the mark of dignity. Laurel leaves again a sign of Peace and possibly successful. Williams Bishop sons carried elements in their coat of arms as Bishops.

Ermine, three stags at gaze gules—John BLYTHE, Bp. of Salisbury, 1593-99 The arms for John seem little different from his father’s coat of arms.

Ermine, three bucks trippant gules, on a chief indented, party per pale or and azure, a cross patonce counterchanged between two roses dexter gules, Geoffrey BLYTHE, Bishop. of Lichfield and Coventry, 1503-31 What is interesting is the addition in Geoffrey’s crest is the addition of two red roses on the left.   The Tudor rose crops up in various places in connection with the Blythe family. In the Chapel roof at Norton Church, in John Blythe’s tomb at Salisbury and in the ceiling at Bishops House.

A Hart trippant badge in relief on window Barmby Hall once owned by John Blythe, Lord of the Manor of Quarmby (1574-87).

Independent thinking and Derbyshire

I have often wondered whether the radicalism and independent way of thinking in Sheffield stemmed from its proximity to Derbyshire and the Lead mining areas.

Reasons for the cutlery industry being in Sheffield are cited as Geographical ie. good source of fuel from woodlands, power from water mills, and iron ore available Also due to the terrain and the type of soil, so the farmer required some other occupation to supplement his income. Outside Sheffield a metal working industry had built up with  the scythe making and edge tool industry in Norton and neighbouring Derbyshire villages.

The metal worker was a person of independent means.  However the Lords of Sheffield might want the people in Sheffield to see the world, on the other side of the boundary there was Derbyshire and the lead miners who saw the world differently.

Lead was an important industry to the King and to the church. No fine house or grand abbey could be made without it.  So obviously any area that produced it had a strong  presence of the Kings men and the Church.  This is resulted in a unique kind of laws being passed in Derbyshire to encourage as much production of Lead as possible.

It was the royal possession of the mineral rights and the royal wish to encourage lead mining, that led to the “free mining” system.  Any man who could demonstrate that he had discovered a significant amount of ore was allowed to open a mine and retain the title to it as long as he continued to work it. Mining took precedence over land ownership. No land owner or farmer could interfere with lead mining.

There was a Barmote court with a 24-man jury sat. There were usually about a dozen gentlemen, some of whom were members of the jury, while others were there to present a case to the Court. Also among the gentlemen were the steward of the court, who was a lawyer and who conducted the sessions. The chief barmaster for the Wapentake, was always a man of wealth and rank, was a local gentleman . If the current chief barmaster was  absent he relied on his deputy barmasters.

The deputy barmasters  were experienced local men. Some of them were yeoman farmer/miners and others local gentlemen.. It was they who initiated much of the business of the Court. It was they, in administering the rules, who determined whether a miner should have a particular mine or whether another should lose one. Their duties required them to be able to read, write and keep account of granting and removing title to mines and of ore production and the duties levied on it. As ore was brought from a mine, it was measured by the dish and the barmaster collected each 13th dish, a royalty or duty known as lot. This was the barmaster’s reckoning. A further duty, called cope  was paid by the merchants who bought the ore from the miners.

The barmaster or his deputy granted title in a mine, the usual name for which was grove or groove, on receipt of proof that it was viable. The proof was a standard container, a dish, filled with about 65 pounds (29 kg) of ore from the mine in question. The miner thus granted title to the mine was said to have freed it, either for old if a development in an existing mine, or for new in the case of a new discovery. He was given permission to work 2 meers of ground, known as founder meers, with no restriction on width or depth. A third meer was the king’s, and other miners were each allowed to open a further meer, taker meers, along the vein. . A meer was  about 26.5 m.

The deputy barmasters were responsible for settling disputes over ownership or of arresting or suspending operation of mines pending decisions of the Barmote Court. They could withdraw title whenever a mine was left un worked.  The mining rules required working shareholders in a mine to pull their weight. Any who did not were dispossessed.

The barmasters’ accounts for 1653  show that the ore from the Brassington, Middleton and Wirksworth liberties, consisted of small amounts mined by a large number of names. Clearly it was the small-time miners, most of whom would have had other sources of income, usually farming, who were paying their dues and selling to the lead merchants and smelters.

This system created a working relationship between ordinary miners and gentry which was I think almost unique.  A miner could work his way up to being a Yeoman farmer. Many of the  gentry  would appear to have started in lead mining or processing, marrying similar families and increasing their wealth and possessions, such as the Kirkes and the Bagshawes.

Looking at records of land sales and rentals it appears to show, for the main,  Derbyshire Yeomen and gentry owning several parcels of land throughout the county and in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Many quite wealthy Derbyshire men did not own  large estates but nevertheless owned substantial amounts of mineral rich lands or woodland.  That does not mean there are no great estates but quite prominent families are found living in some surprising places.

If a simple miner can displace a landowner by finding lead deposits, and become wealthy without land ownership, this is surely significant in the way that the Derbyshire man saw the world and his view of society in general. A new independent thinking yeoman developed. Educated articulate, wealthy but not aristocratic.

The fall of Sheffield Castle

On the 11^th October 1642 Sir John Gell took over Sheffield Castle for the Parliamentary Army. Before the Civil War began in 1642, the King sent out orders for all arms that could be spared to be collected and sent to Doncaster. As a result, four brass cannon were sent from Sheffield Castle. These cannon had been the castle’s main protection and when war broke out, the Sheffield people were easily able to seize and hold the castle for the Parliamentary side. Sir John Gell, a Parliamentary general, was then placed in charge of the castle’s defences.

About this time, the younger John Bright of Carbrook, who though not quite twenty-three years old was already showing signs of great ability, commenced recruiting volunteers to fight for the Parliamentary cause.

Not long after, the remainder of the army that were left at York marched to Leeds, in the west of Yorkshire, and from thence to Wakefield, being both the enemies’ quarters, to reduce and settle that part of the country. My Lord having possessed himself of the town of Wakefield, it being large and of great compass, and able to make a strong quarter, ordered it accordingly ; and receiving intelligence that in two market-towns south-west from Wakefield, viz. Rotherham and Sheffield, the enemy was very busy to raise forces against his Majesty, and had fortified them both about four miles distant from each other, hoping thereby to give protection and encouragement to all those parts of the country which were populous, rich, and rebellious, he thought it necessary to use his best endeavours to blast those their wicked designs in the bud (Margaret Cavendish ,Duchess of Newcastle, Royalist)

Lord Fairfax, in his letter of May 23rd to Lenthal, said,” The forces in Rotherham held out two days’ siege, and yielded up the town upon treaty : wherein it was agreed, that the town should not be plundered ; and that all the gentlemen, commanders and soldiers (six only excepted that were especially named), leaving their arms, should have free liberty to go whither they pleased. But when the enemy entered, contrary to their articles, they have not only plundered the town, but have also made all the commanders and soldiers prisoners ; and do endeavour to constrain them to take up arms on their party.

He marched with his army to Sheffield, another market-town of large extent, in which there was an ancient castle; which when the enemies forces that kept the town came to hear of, being terrified with the fame of my Lord’s hitherto victorious army, they fled away from thence into Derbyshire, and left both town and castle (without any blow) to my Lord’s mercy; and though the people in the town were most of them rebelliously affected, yet my Lord so prudently ordered the business, that within a short time he reduced most of them to their allegiance by love, and the rest by fear, and recruited his army daily; he put a garrison of soldiers into the castle, and fortified it in all respects, and constituted a gentleman of quality, [Sir William Savile knight and baronet] governor both of the castle, town and country; and finding near that place some ironworks, he gave present order for the casting of iron cannon for his garrisons, and for the making of other instruments and engines of war.(Margaret Cavendish)

Unfortunately John Bright and his volunteers, the only men who could have defended Sheffield, were fighting in another part of the country and the castle surrendered to the King’s men with hardly a shot being fired. The Parliamentary defenders of Sheffield castle fled into Derbyshire.

I think it was unlikely that the parliamentary forces left Sheffield because of cowardice but because at the time they were undermanned and ill prepared for a siege at Sheffield Castle. Most of the armaments cannon etc. had been commandeered by the king. Holding the castle would probably have been short-lived and would have brought the wrath of the much larger Royalist army onto the towns people.

Advancing so far south proved to be a mistake for the Earl of Newcastle. General Lord Fairfax, with Parliamentary troops, attacked the Royalist headquarters at Wakefield and captured the garrison with all the stores. Deciding that it would be wiser to fall back on York, the Earl garrisoned Sheffield Castle for a siege and put in charge Sir William Saville, a grandson of the sixth Earl of Shrewsbury. He, in turn, appointed a deputy governor, Major Thomas Beaumont, placing him in full charge of the defence of the castle and left for York to assist the Earl of Newcastle. Sir William left his wife and children at the castle, under the protection of Major Beaumont. The castle defences consisted of two hundred foot-soldiers, a troop of horse, eight cannon and two mortars. (Sir William Saville was killed near York early in  1644.)

John Bright, who’d been promoted to Colonel, took part in the battle of Marston Moor in July of that year. This was the decisive battle which gave Parliament the final victory in the North of England. So on the 8th August 1644, the Earl of Manchester sent an army of one thousand two hundred foot-soldiers and a regiment of horse, under the command of Major-General Crawford, to take Rotherham and Sheffield back.  Rotherham proved more difficult than expected, for the people had blockaded the streets, but superior forces soon won the day. Before the main body of the Parliamentary army advanced on Sheffield, a scouting party consisting of Colonel Bright and Major-General Crawford came to survey the castle and its defences. Considering the castle poorly defended, Colonel Bright wanted to attack immediately, but General Crawford was more cautious so the party returned to Rotherham to report to the Earl of Manchester. The Earl told General Crawford that he could begin an attack, but that he was not to endanger the soldiers any more than necessary. Colonel Bright, in the meanwhile, was sent to York to obtain some heavy artillery for the siege .
When the Parliamentary army entered Sheffield they were welcomed by the townsfolk and they assisted the troops in setting up a large camp on the edge of Sheffield Park. To start the siege, ramparts of sods and stones were built within yards of the castle moat. The builders were fired on and one captain and a master gunner were killed.

‘Our Forces being come near this castle, sent three great shot which did execution in the castle; after which they sent a summons to the castle, who shot three times at the trumpeter, two of which shots hardly missed him; and they flourishing their swords, cried out they would have no other parley.’  (from an account written at the time)

General Crawford then decided to try and drain the moat, but was unsuccessful. He followed this by employing a number of local miners to dig a tunnel under the moat, but they struck solid rock and had to give up.

The Earl of Manchester set local ironworkers busy making more ammunition. The small cannons used were called ‘culverines’ and ‘sakers’, but their shot did little damage to the massive walls of the castle.
The Parliamentary artillery barrage was having little effect, due to a shortage of cannon balls,
More help arrived in the form of Colonel Bright, who brought with him two extra cannon. One was a demi-cannon and the other a very large piece called a ‘Queen’s Pocket Pistol’. Their first shots caused a large breach in the castle walls and the contemporary account goes on to say

‘. . . and these did great execution upon one side of the castle, and brought the strong walls thereof down into the trenches [moat] and made a perfect breach.’

Major Beaumont, commanding the forces in the castle, then decided to seek terms , but after hearing them, he and Lady Saville were reluctant to surrender. A further bombardment was ordered and six more shots breached the castle walls, causing all resistance to collapse. Further talks were then held to draw up terms of surrender.

Articles of Agreement, between the commanders authorised by Major-General Crawford, and Major Thomas Beaumont, Governor of Sheffield Castle, for surrendering the same to the Right Honourable the Earl of Manchester.

• ART. I. The Castle, with all the fire-arms, ordnance, and ammunition, all their furniture of war, and all their provisions (except what is in the following articles), to be delivered to Major-General Crawford tomorrow, by three o’clock in the afternoon, being the 11th of this instant August, without any diminution or embezzlement.
• ART. II. That the Governor, and all other officers, shall march out of the Castle upon the delivery thereof, with their drums and colours, and each his own horse saddled, sword and pistol, to Pomfret Castle, or wheresoever they please, with a sufficient convoy or pass, for their security; the common soldiers to their own home, or where they please.
• ART. III. That all officers and soldiers, so marching out, on this agreement, shall have liberty to carry with them their wives, children, and servants, with their own goods, properly belonging to them, and shall have all convenient accommodation for carrying the same away.
• ART. IV. That the Lady Savill, and her children and family, with her own proper goods, shall and may pass with coaches, horses, and waggons to Thornhill, or elsewhere, with a sufficient guard, befitting her quality; and without injury to any of their persons, or plundering any of their goods or otherwise. She, they, or any of them, to go or stay at their own pleasure, until she or they be in a condition to remove themselves.
• ART. V. That the gentlemen in the Castle being no soldiers, shall march out with each his own horse saddled, sword and pistol, and shall have liberty to remove their goods, and to live in their own house, or elsewhere, without molestation; they conforming to the ordinances of Parliament, and they shall have protection of the Earl of Manchester and Lords. And all officers and soldiers, who chuse to lay down their arms, shall have the same protection.
• ART. VI. That the governor, officers, soldiers, gentlemen, and all others who are by this agreement to carry their own goods with them, shall have a week’s time for removing the same; and in the mean time they are to be in the Castle, and secure from embezzlement. And this article is to be understood of all such goods as are at present within the Castle, or under the absolute command thereof.
• АRT. VII. That Kellam Homer, now living in the Castle, shall have liberty to remove his goods into the town, or elsewhere, without molestation.
• ART. VIII. That the governor, officers, gentlemen, and all other persons, shall (according to the articles above-mentioned) march out without injury or molestation.
• ART. IX. That hostages, such as Major Crawford shall approve, shall be delivered by the governor, upon signing the articles for delivery of the Castle, and safe return of the envoy; which hostages shall be returned safe, upon the performance thereof, unto such place as they desire.
  Agreement for the surrender of Sheffield Castle, quoted in Hunter 1819, pp. 111–112.

The terms were quite generous to the besieged and after handing over the castle, the officers of the garrison were allowed to go where they pleased, keeping their horses, swords and pistols. The ordinary soldiers, providing they laid down their arms, could go to their homes and families and a week was allowed for the evacuation of wives, children and goods from the castle.

Lady Saville, and her children, could either stay in the castle or have safe conduct to leave. By the 11th August 1644, all the soldiers had gone, except for about thirty men, who, on finding some stocks of ale, had got drunk and refused to surrender. Lady Saville’s position was difficult

 “this gallant lady, famous even for her warlike actions beyond her sex, had been besieged by the rebels in Sheffield Castle, which they battered on all sides by great guns, tho’ she was big with child, and had so little regard for her sex, that in that condition they refused a midwife she had sent for, the liberty of going to her. Yet this unheard-of barbarity was so far from moving her that she resolved to perish rather than surrender the castle. But the walls being everywhere full of cracks with age, and ready. to fall, the soldiers of the garrison began to mutiny, not so much concerned for their own danger, as for the lamentable condition of this noble lady, so near the time of her falling in labour; for she was brought to bed the night after the castle was surrendered.” (Dr. P. Barwick)

A swift  attack put Parliament in control and the castle  became a Parliamentary stronghold with Colonel John Bright as governor. Bright had to go to Pontefract and then was appointed Governor of York and Captain Edward Gill, of Norton, took command of the castle. Along with his and Bright’s Kinsman Captain William Blythe of Norton Lees.

Though four years later the Earl of Arundel was allowed to buy back the castle and estate for six thousand pounds, a resolution was passed by the House of Commons that the castle must be destroyed. So in 1648 demolition began and various parts of the castle were sold to local people. Records of these sales still exist, including the acquisition by William Blythe of timber and plasterwork.

An excavation led by Leslie Armstrong in 1927, prior to the construction of the Brightside and Carbrook Co-operative Society store, uncovered the base of one of the gateway bastion towers, as well as part of the gateway itself. These remains of the castle are preserved under the city’s Castle Market: they are Grade II listed  and are open for viewing. More recent excavations in 1999 and 2001 by ARCUS, Sheffield University’s archaeological research and consultancy unit, revealed the castle to have been much larger than previously was thought: among the largest medieval castles in England.

Some previous errors in the Story of Bishops House…(always check your facts)

This is my criticism of previous statements (not by me) but supposively by experts. The expert’s quotes are in itallics.

 In the mid 1500s the west wing was rebuilt with a second storey with oak flooring.

Will of 1562 John Blythe It  does not list rooms but it is obvious from the possessions list that he did not have a lot of furniture or beds which would suggest a fairly basic house. Similar to other wills with no kitchen and no continuous upper floor. Only one set of fire implements suggests one fireplace.

Will of William Blythe 1620

Mentions upper chamber

Little parlour on fold side

Kitchen

Would suggest 2 parlours possibly large Parlour is upstairs (not uncommon judging from Waldershelf Wills and inventories)

After 1600 improvements were made to the house making it a more comfortable place to live in. Windows and fireplaces were added to improve the light and warmth within the house. Wooden panelling and plasterwork were added to make the rooms less draughty and for decoration.

The wood panelling is dated 1627, but the plaster quite clearly both from the invoice and the style of plaster (portraying the talbot dogs) came from the castle, which would mean the plasterwork dates from after 1648. The Will of William Blythe in 1631 does not list any fire equipment in any room but the Hall suggesting that at that time there was probably only one central fire or at most one chimney with access from the Kitchen and the Hall.

1631

Will mentions 2 parlours , one little on the fold side but only one parlour mentioned in probate inventory. Could large parlour be middle chamber?

Probate lists in this order

Hall

Parlour

Chamber over Parlour

Middle Chamber

Chamber over House

Chamber over Kitchen

Kitchen

Buttery

…………………………………………..

Backhouse

Kiln (probably Lime kiln)

Wainhouse

Stable

Servant’s parlour

The hall was split into two storeys with the addition of a floor. The new room could have been used for storage as it would have been the warmest and driest in the house. Two windows on this floor were added to improve the lighting and a new door connected it to the west wing.

 

There is good evidence for this In the will inventory of William Blythe 1631 that there was a kitchen, a buttery, a parlour and a hall downstairs, and upstairs 4 chambers above, one above the parlour, a middle parlour, one above the house (or hall) and one above the kitchen.

Previous Blythe wills though not written in such detail would suggest the house was smaller before 1620 by the small amount of furniture. So it is quite possible that these rooms were added in or around 1627 the date of the carving.

The next phase of alterations to Bishops’ House were probably completed by the second William Blythe, son of the first known owner of the house. He built a stone two storey extension to the back of the west wing. This added two extra rooms, a cellar and a new staircase.

Our research goes much further back than this to John Blythe who died in 1562. Otherwise the statement would appear to be true judging by the will inventory of William in 1665. It also mentions six ranges in the house which were not mentioned in the previous inventory of 1630.

The hearth tax of 1670 lists a William Blythe as having seven hearths, which is backed up by the will inventory 1675. The will also had new rooms mentioned including a porch and room above the porch.

1665

Hall

Great Parlour

Little Parlour

New Chamber

Chamber over Great Parlour

Pass Chamber

In Chamber over the house

Store Chamber

Cellar

Buttery

Kitchen

Kitchen Chamber

………………………………………………………………………

Old Barn

Stable

Old corn chamber

Barn

Corn chamber over bakehouse

Bakehouse

1675

Hall

Great Parlour

Bed chamber

Gate Chamber

Far chamber

Chamber over hall

Porch chamber

Meal chamber

Kitchen chamber

Study

Buttery

Cellar

New House

New chamber

Well

Stable

Upper barn

Nether barn

Yoke house

Brew house

Brew house chamber

Wainhouse

After 1753 the house was let to a farmer and his labourer. The house was divided into two separates homes. In the east wing the alterations included adding an extra staircase, a dairy, new windows, partition walls and fireplaces.

Looking again at the 1675 will it would appear a dairy was already there, certainly all the fireplaces. It could be some of the other alterations were done then. As yet we do not know when the porch and its little room disappeared. Perhaps that was changed in the 1750s. At present we have no evidence to back when the house was divided into 2 but it is obvious from Blore’s drawing in 1823 that there were 2 front doors then.

Unfortunately Samuel Blythe died suddenly of a stroke in 1735 and made no will. There may have been a list of his possessions when they applied for probate but we haven’t found it yet so we do not know what the house was like when the Blythes sold up.

Some more doubtful statements

 1376 is to early too refer to the present house as its construction did not start until around 1500. Also,1500 is too late for Bishops’ House to have been the birth place of the bishops. The house would have been too small for this prestigious branch of the Blythe family who obtained a grant of arms in 1485.

We have no known date of construction for this House. No documentary evidence. No Archaeological evidence. Why 1500 has been picked as a date of construction is not clear. If you go by style alone it gives us a date of between 1460 and 1560 so would not rule out the Bishops living there. Despite Victorian historians suggesting the Blythes moved out of Norton Lees when they got  their coat of arms there is no evidence to back they lived elsewhere. No property deeds or any other evidence. Dendrodating  or tree-ring evidence suggested an early date but as the samples were deemed poor the dating was then altered to allow a 60 year margin of error. There is no evidence to rule out an earlier date of construction. (The Charter was given in 1377 on the 25^th of April.)

In 1910 Armitage, a local historian, was one of the first people to refer to the house as Bishops’ House in print. He acknowledged that there was no evidence for the direct connection with the Blythe bishops. However the Blythe’s who owned the house may have been from another branch of the family.

Bishops House is clearly marked as such in the 1891 census returns, and earlier in a map drawn to go with the conveyance of the property in 1886.  Earlier references to the legend are in articles as early as 1817 when a tenant showed a tourist round. The indications are that the House had been called Bishops House for quite some time before Armitage.

Documentary evidence from the 1500s  suggest that the House carried on belonging to the Armiger or Head of the Blythe family  till the 1540s when it was transferred to John a younger son and therefore not entitled to the whole coat of arms. John however was still included in major inheritance claims so should not be regarded as a minor Blythe. Some family possessions owned for several hundred years in Bakewell were not sold till 1759 by Samuel Blythe junior.

William Blythe rented equipment and premises to smiths and grinders who produced scythes. When he died his stock of 1900 scythes, iron and steel was worth £231, almost as much as the farm. He was probably the main producer of scythes in the area.

If you look at the will it would appear he was doing that, but further investigation suggests that in the main the people who were supposedly renting property from him were actually relatives by marriage. What would appear to be unique to the Blythes is they mined iron and coal, smelted iron, produced charcoal, quarried grindstones, and many of the water wheels used were either owned or rented by Blythes or relatives. Even their distribution network to Hull was supervised by Kin. This was a major family business.

The last Blythe to live in the house was Samuel, minister at Attercliffe. On his death in 1753 his son sold the house to William Shore.

It is well documented that Samuel Blythe died of Apoplexy on the 3^rd May 1735. We have no documents to prove who took over ownership of Bishops House when the estates were sold off. Certainly Benjamin Roebuck bought Meersbrook Estate around 1759 and had possession of the Blythe Smithy at Four Lanes End. We do not know who Roebuck bought the Meersbrook estate off either. All requires further investigation.

The significance of the Blythes and Norton to the growth of Sheffield

In the beginning there was the Smith. He would smelt the iron possibly in a bolehill or small bloomery. Then he would work the iron into any tool his customer specified.  He would produce anything from a horseshoe to an arrowhead. He was not as such independent. He most probably worked for the local lord. However his skill meant he had some degree of status. The Plague and civil wars meant there was both a shortage of skilled men and a demand for them.

After the War of the Roses there would seem to be a growth of both specialist smiths and Yeoman farmer/smiths.  This is particularly true of the area around Sheffield. Geographically and geologically the area was well suited to metal product production. The great woodlands for the production of charcoal, iron and coal which was fairly easily mined, the millstone grit for grinding the sharp edges, and the small rivers which could be harnessed to run the water wheels.

From a farming point of view the land was poor and not able to make much of a living for a Yeoman farmer, so he diversified   and became a specialist smith. In the Blythes case they became scythesmiths.  When this happened exactly is unclear but quite possibly early on in their residence in Norton Lees. The land they owned after all was land for making charcoal. There are early indications that they rented and owned wheels. Certainly by the early 1500s they were established as Smiths.

The Blythes were not unique in Norton. There were many more Yeoman farmers carrying out the same in Norton and in nearby districts.  The Blythe family split into roughly 3 branches, the Barnby Dunn, Rotherham and Barnsley branch, the Dronfield branch, and the Norton Lees and Norton branch. All concerned in the production of iron and making tools. The branches were not distinctly separate, though it was the Dronfield Branch who carried the coat of arms, but interdependent through a number of unfortunate circumstances as some heirs died suddenly without a will, or without an heir and land passed to a nephew or cousins.

Land seemed to be constantly split up between several heirs or sold and other land bought. Advantageous marriages meant some Blythes acquired more land but an early death meant a confusion of claims and the Chancery records would seem to be full of land disputes involving the Blythes. But as many of the Blythes were also lawyers this may be misleading. It certainly would explain that despite everything  the Blythes never reached the dizzy heights of becoming major landowners or awarded honours.

Where the Blythes differed from their neighbours was in their organisation of scythemaking which became with them mass production on a huge scale. They had the iron mines, the woodland, the best land for producing grinding wheels, foundries, smithies, water wheels, and a lot of good family connections with other Yeomen smiths. Also family connections who helped with the distribution of the finished article. Norton Lees became the centre of a vast industry when nearby Sheffield was still producing cutlery individually.

The ability of the Blythes to muster all the sections together was groundbreaking and had to be influential in neighbouring Sheffield. It could be argued that this early method was both good and bad for Sheffield and the surrounding area. The industrial revolution in the textiles industry had come about from mechanisation and a closing down of the independent weaver but in the Sheffield the old system worked so well there was no immediate demand for new technology. Unfortunately as the general population increased and demand increased  the old methods finally were insufficient to meet the demands.

William and Saffrey Blythe, Central Norton or Norton Lees?

Although it is impossible at all times to prove a particular piece of history happened, it is still necessary to use as many original sources as you can to prove what you say is not purely interpretation but has some basis in fact.

In early history besides archaeology the best original sources are legal documents. There are a surprising number of documents for yeomen or above. It is much harder to find evidence of a lowly labourer unless he has committed some sort of crime or was a religious dissenter.

The first evidence of the Blythes comes from the Charter in 1377 whereby John de Blithe receives land in Norton Lees from Thomas Chaworth. Evidence of the Blythes at Norton Lees after this date is for a while quite thin on the ground.   But what of John de Blithe, where did he spring from? A number of legal documents in the Haddon Charters, Foljambe Charters, Rufford Charters translated and transcribed by Yeatman in his History of the Borough of Chesterfield, the pipe rolls of Derbyshire and Nottingham and various documents held by the National Archives spell out the family history of the Blythes in Derbyshire and in particular Chesterfield and Rotherham which definitely takes us Roger de Blie who was a prebendary rector of Rotherham. This was to some extent good luck in that many mentioned parents name and in one case also grandfather plus one piece of land turns up in a Document involving Richard Blythe of Norton in 1500.

1377 Charter British Library ref Add Ch, 27329

History of the Borough of Chesterfield  John Pym Yeatman  (1890)

Extracts with notes of the Pipe Rolls  of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire John Pym Yeatman

Kings Remembrancer Accounts various E101/6/11 and E101/8/2 National Archives Sheffield (Adam de Blida quartermaster )

document ref. no. DD/FJ/1/240/2 Matlock Derbyshire Archives

Chancery: Certificates of Statute Merchant and Sta… C 241/30/24  national archives

The Blythes don’t appear in documentary evidence in my searches in Norton till 1448 though many old books hint at there being earlier documents, but alas not where they got their information from.  There is a dispute between William Blythe and Beauchief Abbey over a hedge blocking a right of way. The special court was held in Norton Lees by the Bishop of York but it is not said where. Here I am making the assumption that although William is not said to be of Lees, the fact that the court was held there would suggest he was.

In 1465 a William Blythe becomes tenant of Cockhagh at a manor court in Norton. In 1475 a William Blythe is in dispute with a Thomas Bullock over detention of deeds This is in the Chancery Records.  Then in 1485 William Blythe is awarded his coat of arms.

The problem with these documents is that they only say of Norton. Sometimes Lees was used but often just the term Norton is used. This has lead to many historians thinking that the Blythe’s moved to the centre of Norton. There is as yet no evidence for this. Although the Blythes became lords of Norton Manor for a short while, this was not till long after William and Saffrey Blythe’s deaths. There is evidence in one document of a John Blythe owning land in Dronfield in 1420 and that possessions in Dronfield were to grow. There are a number of land sales and acquisitions in Dinnington and Chesterfield in the early 1500s. The first mention of a Blythe in Norton is John Blythe who rented the New Mill in 1513.

There obviously was land bought in Coal Aston,  Greenhill and Woodseats  earlier than this judging by later documents. There is no date for Richard Blythe’s marriage to Katherine of Birchett, so it is uncertain when he and Katherine started living there but indications would seem to be after William and Saffrey died but again I have no direct evidence. Likewise although many writers pre 1910 have stated firmly that there was an old house built for William and Saffrey in central Norton there is no clear evidence for this either. It is true that there is a house there which came up in a number of legal documents and a Chancery record but this is much later.

My feeling is that there is a prejudice against Bishops House which is not based on any real evidence. It is assumed that since William acquired a coat of arms that he was already wealthy, and also that Bishops House was too inferior for one of such rank.  We don’t know his situation before the Coat of Arms or even how he came to acquire it. Was it for services rendered or some important person sponsoring him? Someone wanting to give the family a hand to move up the social scale?

It does not mean having acquired the coat of arms he immediately moved into a much larger grander house. It would seem that the coat of arms probably helped his children marry well and in the case of John and Geoffrey acquire high positions. Could this be possibly one of Saffrey’s family helping them? Thomas Rotherham her brother was out of favour at the time, but there were other connections.

This is of course conjecture and I have no more proof for this than the ones who say William and Saffrey did not live in the present Bishops House. This is the problem of interpreting history based on second hand sources. What is obvious when reading the older Victorian and Edwardian writers is that their accounts are coloured by the culture they were living in. I hope I am not, but it is something I am aware of when I don’t have the whole facts that I must not fill the gaps with my own prejudices.

Conveyance in trust  OD/759  7 Mar 1500  These documents are held at Sheffield Archives

this  concerns Richard  Blythe of Norton in  property transaction regarding the land in New Market Chesterfield owned by Blythe’s for several generations

Quitclaim from Nicholas Bullock to Richard Bullock of Onston, of all messuages which he has in Jordanthorpe, within the parish of Norton, Witn, Dom. John Croke,  Vicar of Norton, John Selioke, Richard Blythe, DAT Norton 13 Jan 17 Hen VII (1502)  Derbyshire Charters

Conveyance  ACM/SD/292  gives details of Bishop Geoffrey Blythe and Richard Blythe acquiring land in Dinnington  1505

1513 John Blythe of Norton held a milne called New Milne , with all its appurt. By lease for 60 years date Martinmas  day rent 33s 4d.  (An historical account of Beauchief Abbey S. Pegge) Not a primary source but all the documents mentioned  are in Sheffield Archives to view.

Henry Blyth Apothecary

In 1666 Henry Blythe of Dronfield,  son of Charles Blythe the armiger (he inherited the coat of arms), a cousin of the Blythe’s of Norton Lees. is listed in documents as an Apothecary. He appears to have been both an apothecary in Dronfield (tokens advertising him) and of Nottingham (on deeds of sale of Dronfield lands) He was only 22 at the time so perhaps he was in the process of moving back after an apprenticeship or had just moved to Nottingham. In any case it is obvious that he was an apothecary in Dronfield  around 1666. I thought this meant he was a dispensing  pharmacist or a herbalist but this is an oversimplification.

The word ‘apothecary’ is derived from apotheca, meaning a place where wine, spices and herbs were stored. During the thirteenth century it came into use in this country to describe a person who kept a stock of these commodities, which he sold from his shop or street stall. The trade in spicery and the development of pharmacy,  became interdependent and led to the emergence of spicer-apothecaries who  had their shops  where they stored and sold spices, confectionery, perfumes, spiced wines, herbs and drugs which they compounded and dispensed to the public.

Apothecaries were  medical professionals  who made and dispensed medicines to physicians surgeons, and patients  Their role was to supply drugs to doctors, rather than prescribe medicines themselves. They trained through apprenticeships and, from the 1500s, some university study as well. In addition to pharmacy responsibilities, the apothecary offered general medical advice and a range of services that are now performed solely by other specialist practitioners, such as surgery The medieval apothecary was the ancestor of the modern GP (general practitioner)

By the mid-sixteenth century apothecaries had become the equivalent of today’s community pharmacists, dealing mainly with the preparation and sale of substances for medicinal purposes. Authority over medical practice, however, lay with the College of Physicians.

The London apothecaries with their specialist pharmacy skills petitioned for several years to secede from the Grocers’ Company. Gideon de Laune, a wealthy and influential Huguenot, led the separatists. He was Apothecary to Anne of Denmark, wife of James I, which may have helped them gain the king’s approval. The Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London was incorporated by royal charter on 6 December 1617.

A landmark challenge to the role and legal status of those providing care to the sick, or those who may be sick, came in the form of the Rose Case (1701–1704). William Rose, a Liveryman of the Society of Apothecaries, practising in St Martin’s-in-the-Fields, was sued for ‘practising physic’ on information supplied by John Seale, a poor butcher of Hungerford Market. Rose compounded and administered various medicines to Seale, who was said to be ‘never the better but much worse’ for his treatment. He was apparently so angry when he was presented with an astronomical bill of £50 that he complained to the Royal College of Physicians and Rose was prosecuted and tried before the Court of the Queen’s Bench in February 1701. The legality of Rose’s actions were debated at great length and eventually, and apparently reluctantly, judgement in favour of the Physicians was handed down in November 1703.

On the advice of the Attorney General, the Society of Apothecaries applied for a Writ of Error in the House of Lords, which was heard on 15 March 1704. Part of Rose’s defence included the contention that:

‘… selling a few Lozenges, or a small Electuary to any asking for a remedy for a cold, or in other ordinary or common cases, or where the medicine has known and certain effects, may not be deemed unlawful or practising as a physician, where no fee is taken or demanded for the same. Furthermore the physicians, by straining an act made so long ago, may not be enabled to monopolise all manner of Physick solely to themselves and be an oppression to the poorer families not able to go to the charge of a fee’.

 

Their Lordships regarded the physicians’ argument as being based on upholding ancient privilege and not on the provision of care for the sick, and found for William Rose and, by extension, for all apothecaries, and reversed the judgement. This landmark ruling formed the basis for the legal recognition of apothecaries as doctors, and marked the beginning of the general practice of medicine.

As yet no other trace has been found of Henry other than his baptism in 1644, and mention of him in various legal documents.