Working relationships

The landlord-tenant system was reliant upon two ideas: first, the security provided by the wealth of the landowner, and secondly, granting the tenant some freedom to farm the land in a mode of their choice.Footnote ⁸ This did not mean tenants had carte blanche to farm inefficiently or in a manner that would cause irrevocable damage to the land. In times of poor agricultural prices or economic downturns, the landowner was expected to protect his tenants and to provide financial aid in terms of allowing rents to accrue, rent abatements and the provision of capital for repairs and improvements. In the case of an absentee landowner, such as the Marquis of Anglesey, the day-to-day running of his Dorset estate fell to his land steward William Castleman. In many respects Castleman, like many other men who managed large estates, became the ‘alter ego’ of the landlord.Footnote ⁹ When land was scattered across three or even four counties the difficulties of travelling meant that it was not unusual for outlying lands to be visited by the landowner infrequently, if at all.Footnote ¹⁰ Edward Laurence advocated in 1727 that every nobleman should be encouraged to visit their estates in person every summer, because ‘nothing has tended more to the Abuse and Ruin of brave Estates, than the Lord’s neglect of looking himself sometimes into his own affairs’.Footnote ¹¹ Before William Castleman arrived, the estate had been run by Mr Cox, who appears to have been incompetent and possibly fraudulent. In 1811 the Stalbridge rental arrears stood at £1,019, which equated to around a third of the outstanding arrears. Within short order of his appointment Castleman wrote to Anglesey stating that the accounts submitted to you ‘from time to time’ by Cox ‘are grossly erroneous’.Footnote ¹² More importantly Cox seems to have used his position to promise the tenants various additions to their farms or repairs, which he then did not carry through.

The relationship between landowner, steward and tenant was based on trust. An absentee landowner invested his agent with a high degree of autonomy, which meant that he might hold sway over the direction and quantity of agricultural investment, could alter the social climate of the estate, manipulate electoral behaviour, and affect the overall efficiency and welfare of the landed community.Footnote ¹³ A good agent was defined as one who improved agricultural practice, but at the same time was self-effacing enough to allow all the credit for his actions to be taken by his employer. His role was to foster both working and social relationships within the estate so that a mutual respect was developed between the landlord and agrarian society.Footnote ¹⁴ This was particularly true of working relationships, as it was on these that the viability of an estate might rest. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars there was a deep and long-lasting depression and a disgruntled tenant who left his farm could mean that it was difficult to re-let at a suitable rent. In the case of Castleman, working relationships were made tenser by the promises previously given by Mr Cox, and these divisions were emphasised by his continued mischief making. An emblematic example of the troubles was illustrated by Sherren and Napier, who had prior to Slocomb renting the farm at Bradford taken occupation of a cottage then let by Mr Cox to Slocomb. Sherren, who had been the gamekeeper at Bradford, had been placed in the cottage on Mr Cox’s orders, but Slocomb had taken the cottage to house one of his labourers and had paid rent on the property from the day the lease commenced. Despite the change of tenancy, neither Sherren nor Napier were prepared to quit and furthermore they now refused to meet the rent call. Castleman argued that the only way to remove the ‘squatters’ was through legal means but did not think that Slocomb should be made to meet the cost, as he had taken the cottage in good faith. In other words, the expense should either be passed to the squatters or taken up by the estate itself. In an attempt to settle the matter amicably Castleman had himself visited Sherren, but stated, ‘I cannot make him quit.’ In the margin of the letter Anglesey wrote, ‘Act instantly against them.’Footnote ¹⁵

The Anti-Corn Law League unflatteringly called the farmer ‘a rustic dullard, an ignoramus, a servile retainer who unthinkingly followed the landowner’s lead in politics and county affairs’.Footnote ¹⁶ This certainly was not the case with the Marquis of Anglesey’s tenants. Sherren and Napier were not the only tenants who refused to pay rent in respect of Cox’s actions. In December 1814 Biles, one of the tenants at Hanley, owed above £800, which equated to more than a year and a half’s rent. Overall Biles had not paid a single penny to the estate in the ‘last or preceding’ audit. Furthermore, he did not intend to pay anything until Anglesey ‘had made him satisfaction for the injury he had received by not having the promises made to him by Mr Cox of new buildings on his Farm’. On meeting with Castleman, Biles asked that an immediate referee be named who would act on behalf of his Lordship, so that the amount owed to him by the estate could be quickly ascertained. Castleman was convinced that Biles’s behaviour and manner were a sure sign that the previous agent Cox was stirring up trouble. Consequently, he asked for a copy of the agreement, which would verify the extent of the new buildings previously promised. Castleman wrote that once these were produced it would allow him to establish exactly what ‘his Lordship had violated’. The margin note reveals that despite being an absentee landowner, Anglesey understood exactly the characteristics of his tenants. He stated, ‘Biles’s conduct is infamous and I am perfectly determined & I hereby require you not to lose one moment in proceeding against him to recover in the most summary manner the Rent &c that is due.’ Using his local knowledge and networks Castleman undertook an enquiry into the issues raised by Biles’s involvement with Cox. He then wrote to Anglesey stating that he could prove ‘by unquestionable Testimony the means taken by Cox to influence Biles and some of the other Tenants to resist paying their Rent’. Cox’s anger over the way he left the estate had led to him using both ‘open and secret’ means to make more of the tenants dissatisfied.Footnote ¹⁷ In reply Anglesey wrote:

Not all tenants were as difficult as Sherren, Napier and Biles, but there is no doubt that those who rented land on the estate understood the economic conditions of the period and the value of their properties.

In 1815–16 in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars the price of agricultural produce fell to unusually low levels, and this situation was again repeated between 1821 and 1823. Both landowners and farmers had to accept that postwar prices were not going to be much higher than those of the prewar period and adjusted accordingly.Footnote ²⁰ A sense of just how bad the situation had become was illustrated by Castleman in 1820 when he wrote to Anglesey, ‘it is quite clear that the value of agricultural produce is at this time very much below what any Farmer can sell it for and be enabled to pay his rent’.Footnote ²¹ Even long-term tenants were not immune to failure. Samuel Harris, who farmed at Stalbridge, failed in 1822 owing some £297 10s 0d. Castleman had a degree of sympathy for Harris, not only because his family was large and sickly, but also the family had been tenants of both the Marquis and the previous owner Mr Walters for many years.Footnote ²² Realising that something needed to be done to prevent other tenants from falling into a similar state, John Sanderson, the then agent-in-chief, wrote to Castleman:

Ultimately, Castleman wanted to try and encourage the tenants to pay their rent and on time, as this ensured the estate and Anglesey were able to meet their financial commitments. He thus proposed an allowance on the basis that it:

Castleman added that he had confirmed the allowance on the notification sent out to the tenants advising them of the timing of the next audit, and had stressed that the allowance would only be made to those who left no arrears. He felt, however, that it would probably prove implausible to stick to this rule.Footnote ²⁵ Persuasive techniques worked because Castleman reported, ‘I have the satisfaction to inform your Lordship that the receipts at the Audit considerably exceeded my expectations.’Footnote ²⁶

If an estate was to maintain a regular flow of income, particularly from rents, the farms and other lands had to be kept in the hands of reliable tenants, especially those who could be trusted to pay their rent on time.Footnote ²⁷ Tenant farmers understood their worth and in the difficult economic climate of the postwar period might challenge the amount to be paid under a new lease. No steward or landowner would give in easily to the demands of a tenant over rental income, although they might retreat with the tenant victorious towards the end of negotiations. Tenants understood that within the framework of the working relationship there was a game to be played. It was not unusual, according to David Hainsworth, for tenants to create considerable delay as their lease became due for renewal in the expectation of gaining an advantage and beating down the asking price. The sitting tenant could then argue that the season would be too far advanced for other tenants to take up the farm, as they would start well behind with the seasonal work.Footnote ²⁸ Tenants would then attempt to set their own terms.

The evidence suggests that neither Anglesey nor Castleman were greedy men, Anglesey simply wanted ‘the worth of the land, not more than it is worth’.Footnote ²⁹ Castleman, despite his conviction that it was his responsibility to gain the best possible price for a farm, believed that the level of rent should be set so that the tenant received ‘a reasonable remuneration for his [risk] and skill and the interest of his Capital’.Footnote ³⁰ That said, in periods of poor prices and difficult economic conditions tenants exhibited the type of behaviour described by Hainsworth and would challenge the amount of rent payable, when a lease came up for renewal. In January 1823 Withers, knowing that his lease would cease at Michaelmas, opened negotiations with the estate, at a period when the agricultural community would be considering the spring planting. Withers was demanding more than 40 per cent reduction on his rent. While Castleman considered that the great difference in the value of agricultural produce might justify the size of the abatement, he could not recommend its acceptance without first trying to acquire a higher rent. In his favour, Withers was ‘a respectable Tenant’ and a ‘good farmer’ who always paid his rent on time. Castleman, however, warned that unless Anglesey was prepared to take a tenant from year to year (rack renting) it would be best to let Withers continue. Ultimately the negotiations gave Withers a reduction of 25 per cent but the lease could be ended by either party at the end of any one year. This meant that should the price of agricultural produce and rental values increase, Anglesey would be able to end Withers’s tenancy and take advantage of changing circumstances to procure a larger rent. Other tenants tried the same moves but were not always so successful.

In 1829, Castleman was concerned that distress among the tenants was continuing to rise. He had struggled to collect all the rents at the autumn audit and in December was still trying to gather in arrears, even in the smallest amounts. The tenants understood that if they quit now, they would be absolutely ruined by the depreciation in land and stock values. Castleman warned against distraining on any of the tenants, as he believed the land would simply lie in hand and prove difficult to re-let. A farmer at Stalbridge named Burge had given notice before Michaelmas to quit but Castleman suggested that he had done this with the knowledge of some of the other tenants in the area. He perceived that this had been an attempt at a joint scheme whereby if Burge had been successful in re-letting his land at a cheaper rent, then many others would have followed suit. Castleman was far too canny for this type of move and refused to re-let any of the farms at a lesser rent and thus foiled this combined action. Furthermore, Burge, fearing that his farm might be let to someone else, withdrew his notice and Castleman assented to his request. Although both sides were prepared to play a game of bluff, it was actually Burge who had the most to lose and gave in first.Footnote ³¹

Not all arbitration concerned leasing agreements. Ordinary events such as accidents or incidents could result in negotiating some form of compromise. Even in these circumstances Castleman’s role was to ensure that the estate did not make a loss. Dealing with tenants, even those who had agreed to a deal could be time-consuming and problematic. The advantage of employing a steward was emblematically illustrated when the cottages rented to William Brewer at Hanley under his own life and to whom the Marquis of Anglesey owed £5,000 – burnt down. To avoid the expense of rebuilding, which the estate had the perfect right to enforce under the covenants of the lease, it was decided between Brewer and Castleman that a sum of some £40 would be paid instead. Despite repeated attempts to obtain the monies, Castleman was left finally with no choice but to resort to legal action. Not only had he been unable to persuade Brewer to pay but he also continued to hold possession of the cottages. Even the threat of legal action had not resolved matters, and in fact Castleman had not seen Brewer since the letter was sent. Despite the outstanding mortgage Anglesey was able to use his steward to separate himself from the situation. The frustration that the Marquis of Anglesey’s tenants created is inherently expressed in his comments to Castleman:

Despite deciding upon a firm course of action this case continued to rumble on and more than a year later Castleman was again writing to Anglesey about Brewer. Further attempts had been made to try and recover the money owing until finally Castleman commenced court proceedings. This was enough and within a week Brewer had surrendered his lease and agreed in writing to pay the reduced sum of £30 and all costs immediately.Footnote ³³

In the difficult economic climate of the early nineteenth century there were many occasions when the Dorset tenants struggled to pay their rent. Abatements of rent and the toleration of accruing arrears by landlords were short-term remedies to help alleviate financial distress. Sometimes these were enough but often led to longer-term rent reductions.Footnote ³⁴ To a limited extent the tenant farmer was able to use his landlord as a banker and looked to him to provide credit in tough financial years. This was usually by deferring payments or perhaps by providing extra capital for investment in his farm. Keeping tenants was vital unless the landowner wanted to take up the farm itself or leave it unexploited. Landlords needed the tenants far more than the tenants needed landlords. Richard Hoyle believes that this meant the relationship was asymmetrical.Footnote ³⁵ While in essence this might be true, tenants understood that a good landlord would do his best to support them, especially when problems arose they were therefore reluctant to move unless they were on the point of bankruptcy. Nowhere was this relationship more evident than in the period between 1814 and 1836. The Marquis of Anglesey, using the local knowledge and networks of his land steward, was able to adjust his rents and move audit dates in line with other landowners in the area. This ensured that the estate presented a unified approach and was always in step, which reduced the chance of any unnecessary discontent among the tenantry.

The estate in 1828 and 1829 saw a prolonged period of natural disasters. In 1828 the corn harvest had been ‘deficient in quantity and quality’ and had been further damaged by the heavy rain. Likewise, the hay crop had fallen victim to the same cause. J. M. Stratton describes 1828 as ‘a wet summer with disappointing harvest’. He continues, ‘that the rains of July 6 to August 15 were exceptionally violent, causing considerable flooding’. In 1829 again, the summer was wet with excessive rain in August, resulting in disastrous floods.Footnote ³⁶ As if this had not caused enough problems the ‘rot’ or ‘coathe’ had decimated the sheep flocks and attacked a number of the horned cattle.Footnote ³⁷ The loss of the sheep was doubly worrying as they were folded in the winter months and thus manured the land. Castleman was concerned that this would have a knock-on effect on the next year’s crops. Many of the tenants who did not keep constant flocks on their farms took in sheep during the winter and had consequently lost the whole or at least the greater part of these animals. Farmers would normally receive the ‘price of their keep’ at Lady Day (25^th March). The owners, however, had refused to take back those still alive and demanded payments for all their sheep including those lost, thus adding to the tenants’ financial difficulties.Footnote ³⁸ By October the full extent of the problem created by the disease was becoming apparent. Castleman wrote to Anglesey concerning the tenantry at Stalbridge. He stated that a report he had compiled in June and sent to Anglesey had failed to represent the full loss of sheep on the estate. The land steward needed to be vigilant, particularly when the tenants were short of money. At the autumn audit several tenants paid nothing and others he caught unsuccessfully attempting to convert their property into money. Rather than forcing them to pay their rent to schedule Castleman allowed them more time. He stated ‘I must keep a perpetual watch to prevent dishonest tricks.’Footnote ³⁹

As explained by Rab Houston, the land steward was expected to act as intermediary between landowner and tenant, providing local knowledge and advice and representing the farmers without taking their side.Footnote ⁴⁰ 1829 demonstrates this process in action, due to the unprecedented distress and the general inability to pay their rent tenants had begun to protest. Castleman promised without fail to lay a ‘faithful representation of their losses’ before his Lordship but had refused due to the seriousness of the situation to offer any rent reductions or relief without first consulting Anglesey.Footnote ⁴¹ He had emphasised to the tenants that Anglesey was known to them for his kindness and Castleman was sure that he would take their precarious position into account, especially as it was not one of their own making. Castleman, however, stressed that Lord Anglesey despite the ‘accidental cause’ of the Distress should not be relied on automatically to order a reduction or abatement of rent, any more than tenants should be expected to pay an advance on rents in prosperous years. Castleman wrote to Anglesey:

Fortunately for the estate no immediate decision was necessary, for while the tenants at Stalbridge had been badly affected, those at Hanley and Gussage had escaped and their animals remained in good health. The speed with which conditions could change are inherent in this letter, for Castleman noted that in October 1828, he had ‘never received so much rent or saw it paid so cheerfully’.Footnote ⁴³ Within a short twelve-month period some of the largest tenants in Stalbridge and elsewhere on the estate had gone from relative prosperity to almost ruin.

Despite the difficulties faced by the tenants, none had sought to give notice at the 1829 autumn audit to quit their farms. Daw and Barrett alongside Burge had applied to ‘treat’ again for their farms at the audit but Castleman had refused to ‘name’ the yearly rent. This was a deliberate move. Understanding the behaviour of tenants was an essential part of running an estate and Burge, in particular, was likely to quit and then reapply for his farm lease as soon as a depression occurred, and this was a practice Castleman sought to stop. Essentially by behaving in this manner Burge hoped to lease the property again at a lower rate. Ultimately Castleman thought they were taking advantage of the estate’s sense of fair play as neither he nor the Marquis had ever determined a lease before it had fully expired. In Daw and Barrett’s case they were allegedly leaving their farm because they had decided to dissolve their partnership the following spring and so they were less of a worry. Where Burge was concerned, Castleman wanted time to consider whether to lease him the farm again, although he conceded that he was a good tenant and farmed well.Footnote ⁴⁴ In the end, as Castleman had intimated throughout his correspondence of late 1829, it became necessary to put in place a scheme to reduce the rent and arrears for those who had suffered the most. There was to be no carte blanche offer. In May 1830, after a statement of each individual tenant’s losses had been compiled, a sum was allowed, which was unique to everyone and based on the person paying a given amount by 6^th July 1830. This would then also reduce the arrears on the rental book equal to where they stood at Michaelmas 1828. However, if the agreed sum was not paid by the given date, the tenant would ‘absolutely forfeit all claim to the proposed allowance’.Footnote ⁴⁵ It was sometimes necessary for landowners, in exceptional situations or with arrears that no tenant could possibly pay to ‘forgive’ the outstanding debts or at least part of them in order to clear the books.Footnote ⁴⁶

The estate and Castleman were not entirely mercenary when it came to the tenant farmers. Undoubtedly the aim was to keep a good tenant in place, not to allow the arrears to accrue to levels that were unsustainable, and to keep open channels of communication with the Marquis of Anglesey. He could then approve any useful and practicable scheme that would alleviate the distress of the tenantry. At times none of these measures worked and this meant that large and long-time tenants failed and left their farms. Baker at Bradford was one such man Castleman around 1832 levied a ‘Distress’ and recovered all the rent but this had left Baker with scarcely anything but his household goods. Castleman wrote ‘He is a very honest Man and first got into his difficulties by the loss of his sheep by the Rot, which he never recovered; notwithstanding Lord Anglesey’s allowance to him.’ Castleman was now worried at Baker’s poverty and wrote to Anglesey that a donation of £10 or £20 would be of the ‘greatest service to him. Will you allow me to give him a small gratuity?’Footnote ⁴⁷ This request was agreed in early November and it is possible that the plan was to prevent him becoming a burden to the parish or simply to reward him for his long service to the estate.

A central role of land stewards such as William Castleman was to act as guardians of the estate, and therefore they had a responsibility to protect it against any actions by the tenants which might harm the land, its produce, or create unnecessary tensions.Footnote ⁴⁸ In 1844, the sporting access over Stalbridge Manor was rented by Yeatman who was a most troublesome man and demonstrated the extent to which a single tenant could cause dissent.Footnote ⁴⁹ Mr Drax had previously hunted with foxhounds across Stalbridge lands and rabbits had been preserved to provide food for the foxes, but Yeatman had forbidden him from entering the Stalbridge covers and now the rabbits were committing great depredations on neighbouring farms.Footnote ⁵⁰ The extent of the damage that these animals could cause was illustrated in a report on Thomas How’s young wheat in ‘Furzey Ground’. The said land covered about six acres, which had been sown after a summer fallow and drilled with guano and ashes at great cost. The whole field, apart from approximately one acre on the crown of the hill, ‘is eaten off very bare by rabbits and hares’ and even that on the crown was seriously injured. Consequently, the future of the crop was in a very perilous condition, and the state of the wheat of Daniel and Samuel Harris and Levi Jeans were also damaged but not as badly.Footnote ⁵¹ The tenants frequently complained as seen above that the rabbits from Yeatman’s land caused extensive destruction to their crops. Although the problems were caused by another tenant, it was from the estate that compensation would be sought and it was therefore in Anglesey’s interest that his land agent find workable solutions.

When tenants were debtors, they were often quick to resort to the law, a weapon usually presumed to be the preserve of the landowner and steward. Tenants were aware of the opportunities that the law afforded them. It could provide time and delaying tactics when faced with payments of outstanding rent or due fines.Footnote ⁵² Problems were, unsurprisingly, most likely to occur during periods of economic downturn and when there was a fall in the prices of crops or livestock the steward needed to be vigilant and observe carefully those most likely to commit fraudulent actions. At the spring audit of 1843, the tenants in general paid their rents in full and without complaint. There were warning signs though, as it appeared that some of the smaller tenants were forced to pay part of their rent out of capital, that is, by selling off parts of the ordinary stock. Castleman warned that if prices did not pick up over the coming twelve months, these smaller farmers would either need to be removed or would request permanent reductions on their rents.Footnote ⁵³ He argued that the only thing keeping the tenants ‘quiet’ was the knowledge that they had a good landlord, who on all previous occasions of distress and loss had come forward and relieved them at least in part.Footnote ⁵⁴ Spotting a tenant who might set a precedent among the tenantry was an essential skill in maintaining the current economic status quo of a given neighbourhood.

The tenant to watch in 1844 was Akerman, who had taken the lease on a farm at Stalbridge in 1843 for a term of eight years, which could be ended by either party at the end of any given year with six months’ notice.Footnote ⁵⁵ At the Lady Day Audit, some six months after taking the farm, he tried to give notice but Castleman refused to accept. Although he paid his rent in full, around December 1843 Castleman received notice that Akerman was about to sell his farm stock at auction, and a messenger was immediately sent to distrain for the half year rent to Michaelmas, which was all that was due. The distress was not in fact levied as once confronted, Akerman paid in full all outstanding debts.Footnote ⁵⁶ Castleman, discovered, however, that Akerman had locked the house, having appeared first to have removed all the goods within it and absconded leaving nothing on the farm but ‘3 ricks of hay, a part of another rick and 1 small rick of clover seed’.Footnote ⁵⁷ Akerman had set his son and daughter up in the neighbourhood with a dairy stocked from the sale of his stock and Castleman believed he had deliberately and fraudulently thrown the farm. Akerman sought legal advice through Robert Noone about the costs of the charges made by the estate and challenged the sums which were demanded, stating that he had informed Castleman ‘according to times the rent was not to be made and that something must be done but you [were] not inclined to it’.Footnote ⁵⁸ Akerman had tried to quit as it seemed the only honourable way to leave his farm, but had indicated that he would agree to any reasonable deal that the estate put forward. At this point Castleman did not have legal possession of the farm but was prepared to acquire it through the court. Thomas Beer, the agent-in-chief, urged Castleman to make an example of Akerman because if allowed to behave in this manner he would set an example that other ‘rogues’ might follow.Footnote ⁵⁹

The working relationship with the tenant farmers was underpinned by a loose but defined framework, whereby the landowner would aid and help during periods of distress. Part of the success of this relationship was the voting and political status that was endowed on tenant farmers by the landowner. These rights conferred the opportunity to refigure the local balance of power on a regular basis. The estate was prepared to make examples of those who it believed challenged its authority, as in the case of Akerman. The tenants, however, were only one section of the rural community and were perhaps the easiest to control. Should a tenant farmer behave in a manner that was unacceptable they could be forced from their farms, but the lower-class labouring elements were perceived as being harder to regulate. Castleman was responsible for all those within the rural community who came under Anglesey’s patronage, and thus found himself dealing with people who were less than deferent and who were often bent on dissent. This social component of the estate needed delicate handling in situations where it was possible that riot and violence could erupt over the smallest of grievances.

Social relationships and social control

The concept of social control came to prominence and was quickly adopted by some historians who were anxious to escape from the ‘poverty of empiricism’ and to set their findings in a theoretical framework. According to F. M. L. Thompson, ideas of social control are generally used to denote the ‘imposition of opinions and habits by one class upon another’.Footnote ⁶⁰ What is less clear is who the operative agencies might be and how their influence and intentions might be imposed. It is often assumed that such bodies could include but not be limited to policymakers, moralisers, the church, and organisers of social agencies. In effect a group or class devised its own methods of communication and instilled its own customs, values, traditions and habits on the lower classes, and that the higher group could be the estate itself, where it was a major presence. Deciding whether methods of social control have been successful can only be determined if the desired behaviour is given and any side effects achieved. As will be seen, local elements could be unruly and needed a delicate but firm hand to maintain peace and ensure the smooth running of an estate. The rural literature of the nineteenth century largely suggests that rural communities were ‘held in thrall’ to the superior and landowning classes. It is usually advocated that landowners used ‘analogous coercive’ power and exploited fear about the consequences of disobedience. Under such theory, agricultural labourers and other plebeian figures within agrarian society harboured a dislike and resentment to any in positions of authority. For much of the time this discontent rumbled beneath the surface, occasionally erupting in outbreaks of violent words or deeds.Footnote ⁶¹ A second view argues that rural social relationships were not so much ones of conflict contained through compulsion and intimidation, but instead existed as an awkward independence, which was kept in check by social leadership, conditioning and paternalism. In estate terms this often resulted in using the full process of the law to make specific examples of the ringleaders when discontent occurred. Again, the underlying sentiment is one of conflict, but this is monitored by a careful manipulation and vigilance on the part of the landowning classes. In this second scenario harmony relies on continual mediation, deference and obedience. Just as in the first case, there would be occasional protests, riots or strikes.Footnote ⁶² In many respects this Dorset estate falls between the two situations: for much of the time all the components of the rural community worked well, and it was only when matters became unbalanced that they appear documented in the archive. The aim of this article is to explore the subtle nature of social relationships through different paradigms and while the Swing Riots of 1830–1 affected the estate, they will not be discussed here. Instead, I will examine more ordinary events where violence occurred or where the estate sought to control and balance social relationships through its example and leadership.

On the Dorset estate of the Marquis of Anglesey social relationships permeated all levels of the community. The tenants were reliant on the estate for their livelihood and were tied in by a variety of leases and an all-important relationship with the landowner, which was dependent on an expected standard of behaviour. That is not to say that they ignored the plight of the labouring poor, for in the post-Napoleonic War period rural poverty was an ever-present threat. The extent of it varied according to seasonal factors and the size of harvest yields, among many other factors, but it never fully diminished.Footnote ⁶³ For example, The Times reported in August 1826 that a meeting had been held by the farmers in Stalbridge to consider the best means of employing the labourers, many of whom were without work. It stated that:

Dorset itself became synonymous with poor living conditions and low wages. Keith Snell argues in the fifty years following 1770 that the standard of living and ‘real wages’ for Dorsetshire labourers fell and consequently male wages failed to keep up with prices.Footnote ⁶⁵ It was not until 1880 that they rose to a level similar to those of 1767–70. Kevin Bawn too argues that the earnings of agricultural labourers in the county during the late 1820s and 1830s ranged from seven to eight shillings per week.Footnote ⁶⁶ The meagreness of this renumeration is highlighted when compared to Martin Daunton’s figures for Northumberland where wages were around ten to twelve shillings per week.Footnote ⁶⁷ Social relationships were more than the simple sum of wages. They frequently revolved around many considerations such as: traditional and customary rights, the ownership of trees and finding ways to bring the more errant aspects of the estate under control.

Traditions were a crucial element of the life of the estate, and when these were interrupted people became hostile and felt deprived of their usual rights. Social relations could easily erupt into unexpected violence and consequently the land steward needed a cool head and good diplomatic skills to navigate the quagmire. For example, an anonymous letter sent to Lord Anglesey in the autumn of 1819 complained that Castleman had refused to allow the usual general hunt to take place before the Court at Hanley. The author stated that this event had ‘been practised and deemed a right in the memory of Persons near a hundred years of age most living and without doubt many years beyond any memory’.Footnote ⁶⁸ The writer blamed the agents of Anglesey and Lord Rivers, finding it inconceivable that Anglesey would have concurred with his steward’s actions. The letter stated, ‘all former Stewards … regularly opened the court at 8 o’clock in the morning when the Tenants and people commenced their Hunt’.Footnote ⁶⁹ The previous year Castleman had refused to open the court until almost one o’clock, meaning that there had been no time for deer hunting beforehand.Footnote ⁷⁰ A final insult to the author was that no court was held in 1819 and Castleman had decreed that no further courts would be held in the future, thus bringing to an end this traditional affair. Consequently, the author advocated that if Anglesey had given his approval to these proceedings then he had ‘given up the most Valuable rights of your estate’.Footnote ⁷¹ If, however, it was the sole work of the steward then the writer argued that ‘he has done your Lordship so essential an injury that the Punishment of being discharged from your service is very inadequate to his deserts’.Footnote ⁷²

This letter from one disgruntled member of the public gave an individualistic view, but Castleman’s reply to a previous letter from the Marquis of Anglesey adds context and reveals the fragility of social relationships. It provides a sense of how discontent could easily move from a peaceable situation into riot and disorganisation. Stewards like Castleman often needed resolve in order to quell unrest. Castleman stated that he had ‘held the Hanley Court last year at the [risk] of my life and was insulted in the grossest manner by a mob of 4 or 500 Lawless Fellows’ for failing to open the court two hours before the time that had been fixed.Footnote ⁷³ In defiance of Castleman, once the jury had been sworn in, they left with the rest of the mob to go deer hunting. Unable to conduct the court’s business and after a wait of two hours, Castleman shut the court. The hunt would have moved across Lord Rivers’ land, and previously in 1818 he had taken legal action against one of the hunters. It was presumed that this man would appear at the Quarter Sessions, be sent to prison, and that the parish of Hanley would have to support his family.Footnote ⁷⁴

The Court at Hanley was not the only contentious issue on the estate. Trees were a valuable asset that either brought the estate an income or could be used for repairs and improvements to buildings and houses. Wood was also used as fuel and The Times in 1826 reported that in Stalbridge:

This ensured that there was a conflict between the estate’s ideas surrounding the value of timber as a commercial enterprise and the local population’s requirements for cooking and heating. At times, therefore, it is hardly surprising that these differing opinions resulted in disruption and possible violence. Carl Griffin argues that it was not only the rulers of rural England to whom trees assumed a critical economic and cultural importance but also the ruled.Footnote ⁷⁶ Both economic and cultural views are illustrated at Hanley in the quarrel over an avenue of ash trees.

In February 1827, John Streatfield wrote to the Marquis of Anglesey, ‘There is a fine avenue of Ash Trees which for many years has been [the] greatest ornaments of our Village and which local associations have endeared to ye people.’Footnote ⁷⁷ Castleman had ordered that these trees be cut down and this letter was both a protest against that action and a request to stop the destruction. Of course, Castleman’s explanation was considerably different to that of Streatfield’s, as he argued that the ash was getting into a state of decay and he had sold the majority of it to Kendall, a local carpenter.Footnote ⁷⁸ As soon as the sale was known ‘the whole Mob in this riotous place’ declared that in fact the timber was theirs. Consequently, they threatened to cut it down themselves and to resist anyone employed under Anglesey’s authority. To emphasise their threats the mob cut down two small trees, one of which was dead, and damaged two others. In order, to stamp the estate’s mandate on the unruly element of Hanley, Castleman on enquiry had enough evidence to convict Adams for heading the mob. Captain Peyton, another resident, and his party were also probably liable for indictment but Castleman was unable to advise proceeding.Footnote ⁷⁹ In response to Streatfield’s letter Castleman countered that it was only when Peyton found that his party had been foiled in taking the trees that they had become ornamental. In fact, when Adams cut the top off one of the trees and one of the rioters ‘shrouded’ another, Streatfield had failed to notice or comment.Footnote ⁸⁰ There are always two sides to every story, but this incident reveals the extent to which resentment bubbled underneath the surface and could easily erupt at the slightest provocation. The rioters, however, were stopped when Castleman arranged for the timber to be guarded overnight, and the following day sent his son to remove the timber, by force, if necessary. Furthermore, it was emphasised that any who resisted would be punished ‘by every means’ possible. On the arrival of Castleman’s son everything was quiet, and the timber was removed without any other incident. Adams was the only man prosecuted and imprisoned, but as he had a wife and four children and seemed ‘truly penitent for his Offence’, and an example had been made, Castleman hoped that after a month Lord Anglesey would consent to his release.Footnote ⁸¹ Both sides had made their point, and by punishing Adams, a warning had been given to all the other protestors.

This was not the only instance where cutting and taking away trees created tensions and had repercussions. In 1837 Castleman wrote to Anglesey about an incident that had occurred six or seven years previously. On this occasion, several trees had been blown down in Stalbridge Park and a group of labourers had appeared with hooks and in defiance of all attempts to remonstrate with them had cut and carried away parts of the tops of the trees. The group had carried on until they were overpowered. Rather than prosecuting the culprits Anglesey, at Castleman’s suggestion, extended punishment to the wider community by withdrawing his subscription for coals. His reason for revisiting the incident was that a similar episode had recently taken place when ‘the same class of persons’ attempted a parallel action. The mob were resisted with great difficulty and thrown out of Stalbridge Park. Castleman wanted again to extend the consequences and stop the coal subscription. He stated, ‘It is a practice of that disorderly and riotous kind which should be checked’, even though they contended that they were entitled to the tops of the trees.Footnote ⁸² Realising the extent of his actions in the earlier affair, Castleman had written to Rev. Luke ‘that if there were any old people in great distress that he might lay out £2 or £3 in Coals for them & that I would repay him’.Footnote ⁸³ So the community would understand the full extent of the actions undertaken, but the most vulnerable should not be allowed to suffer unduly.

Anglesey and Castleman understood that at times fostering good social and working relationships meant doing something that was simply for the good of those living within the estate. Admiral Aylmer had erected a weighing engine near the Old Red Lion at Stalbridge. At the time, it had cost around £70 to £80. The residents were charged a toll at first to use the engine, but this produced very little as a return on investment. In recent years the weighing engine had been let at an annual rate of £5 per annum subject to occasional repairs, and overall had been a loss-making exercise. Furthermore, engines of this kind had short lives of maybe fourteen or fifteen years before the machine was worn out. The price of repairing it equalled much the same as purchasing a new one. Castleman had costed a new engine that he thought might best suit the estate’s purpose at £68, from which would be deducted £5, the value of the old engine. Having the engine in the town was advantageous to the tenants but would never produce a profit. In response to his letter, Anglesey wrote in the margin, ‘If this machine is not a matter of profit as it is one of accommodation to my tenants provided it is not one of [extensive] loss I do not object to its continuance.’Footnote ⁸⁴ The choice of engine was left to Castleman’s discretion.

One main method used by the estate to foster good morals and exemplary behaviour was often undertaken in conjunction with the clergy through the formation of schools. Education during the first half of the nineteenth century could be patchy; some villages had parochial schools supported in part from parish lands, rates or the local estate, while a growing number possessed National schools.Footnote ⁸⁵ Sunday schools, as Keith Snell argues, were key in promoting orderliness, punctuality, sobriety, cleanliness and other related virtues that were seen as essential components of good behaviour and social discipline.Footnote ⁸⁶ In the late eighteenth century, Sunday schools had emerged alongside day schools and these sought to teach the children to read the Bible and learn the catechism.Footnote ⁸⁷ In addition to broader parish schools there might be private enterprises that could vary from adequate day establishments to dame classes.Footnote ⁸⁸ The clergy had a particularly important role especially as religion and education were closely linked and this was evident in applications to the estate for subscriptions. While the estate did not in its own right establish any singular school, it did gift land and make annual payments to a variety of establishments.

From the beginning of his agency, Castleman realised that education of the children might eventually have a calming influence. When the Rector of the parish approached Castleman to support the school at Hanley, he wrote to Anglesey stating that this might be a good idea. However, before he was prepared to spend even a small sum of money, he needed to understand more about the type of establishment that existed and the expense that it incurred annually. Once Castleman had this information he believed that he would have no difficulty in persuading the tenants and the estate to make an annual subscription. On enquiry, the school was found to be a Sunday school and Castleman suggested that a ‘payment of 4 or 5 guineas per year would be quite sufficient’.Footnote ⁸⁹ Castleman viewed Hanley as ‘one of the most disorderly parishes in the whole district of the Chase’, and thus supporting the school was within the estate’s policy of managing social relationships and bringing about some modicum of control.Footnote ⁹⁰

A similar idea is illustrated in a letter from Rev. Bradford, Rector of Stalbridge who wrote to the Marquis of Anglesey in November 1826 stating that he wished to establish a school in the parish for children aged two to five. A school already existed for those aged five to eight, but Bradford believed this new establishment would have two main effects. First, the children would now have six years of regular training, which he felt was ‘quite sufficient for every purpose of their condition’. The great object, Bradford argued, was ‘to teach them order and cleanliness’. Secondly, it would release their mothers for a large part of the day, so ‘that they may follow any occupation they may have or take better care of the household’.Footnote ⁹¹ Anglesey left the final decision to Castleman and on this occasion, he declined to subscribe to the idea because of the amount already spent supporting local institutions. He agreed with the basic sentiment and contended that ‘anything that can tend to improve the morals and Conduct of the rising Generation in Stalbridge must be highly desirable’.Footnote ⁹² Throughout the Anglesey/Castleman archive references to schools abound. For example, the trustees of Read and West’s school at Bradford Abbas appealed to the estate to add three small tenements to their lease. Overall this would give the school a sixty-foot frontage and thus create an external character that imparted respectability in the eyes of the local population. It was hoped that this would have an influence, however small, on the local populace.Footnote ⁹³ In 1844, shortly before his death, Castleman was still supporting the establishment of new schools by the local clergy and this time it was in liaison with Mr Dugdale the Rector at Kington Magna.Footnote ⁹⁴

Providing financial support for a school was more than simply making monetary payments for education, as it allowed the estate to explore methods of working with the wider community, especially during times when poverty was particularly extensive. At Stalbridge, for example, the estate made subscriptions towards clothing for those who attended Rev. Luke’s Sunday school. The estate not only made this extra payment but also an annual payment of £20, which Castleman wished to continue as ‘anything likely to improve the morals & Conduct of the rising generation in that turbulent place is I am sure deserving his Lordships attention’.Footnote ⁹⁵ In 1834, Castleman received a letter from the curate at Hanley requesting Lord Anglesey’s annual subscription to the charity school in the parish. Castleman believed the curate had been responsible for an encroachment ‘of the most glaring kind’ on part of Anglesey’s land in Hanley. To prevent further problems Castleman had laid a case before ‘Counsel’ and argued that Sanderson (the agent-in-chief) would soon have to decide whether further legal proceedings were necessary. Consequently, he had written to Sanderson asking permission to withhold the annual payment to the school to make a visible example of the curate.Footnote ⁹⁶ Sanderson wrote back: ‘I need not say that I sympathise with you on [account] of the mutinous deportment of your neighbours at Hanley’ and contended that any acts of delinquency should be punished as a warning to others. On this occasion, however, he could not recommend the withdrawing of a charitable donation made in Lord Anglesey’s name. Sanderson would only allow this to happen if it could be proved that the school was being used to instruct the children ‘in the vicious course of many of the inhabitants of the place’.Footnote ⁹⁷ Thus, continuing to educate the younger generation was more important than punishing a somewhat errant curate.