In spite of the information recently
given to a meeting of the ratepayers of the parish of
Cowling, the question of the freehold shooting and
grazing rights on Ickornshaw Moor has up to the present
time been inadequately explained. Through the kindness
of a well-known gentleman of legal and antiquarian
reputation, a much more definite analysis of the matter
is available, and in the following statement made by him
the public have a more authoritative and legally
accurate summary of the facts than has ever been given
before.
Ickornshaw Moor is included in the wastes or common
lands of the Manor or Lordship of Ickornshaw (or Cowling
as it was commonly called), the Manor itself forming
part of the present township or parish of Cowling.
The whole of England was formerly divided into manors
held directly or indirectly from the Crown. The lordship
or ownership of a manor, including the soil of the
wastes or common lands thereof (i.e. those parts of the
manor which had not been enclosed), was vested in the
Lord of the Manor, and he could exercise all the rights
of ownership, e.g. shooting over such lands, but subject
to the "common rights" of the tenants of the manor, i.e.
the right of such persons as owned enclosed lands within
the manor (which they held of the Lord of the Manor and
for which they rendered service and paid quit rents) to
get peat and to turn out their cattle, sheep, etc. to
pasture on the common lands.
In some manors, e.g. Stothill, also in the township of
Cowling, this still holds good, and the soil of Stothill
Moor and the shooting over it still belongs to the Lord
of the Manor, subject to the right of the tenants of tie
manor, or freeholders (i.e. the owners of ancient
holdings or farms in tie manor) to get peat and to turn
out to pasture on the moor in summer as many animals as
their farms will keep in winter.
The other manors, e.g. Keighley, the Lord of the Manor
and the freeholders have obtained an Inclosure Act and
the wastes and common lands have been divided among them
in "allotments" in proportion to the size of their
ancient holdings and all common rights have been thereby
extinguished.
But in the case of the manor of Ickornshaw, or Cowling,
a different course was adopted. In or about the year
1565 the then Lord of the Manor, Richard Tirrell, Esq of
London, sold to the tenants of the manor three ancient
holdings in fee simple, reserving only quit rents, which
amounted in all t0 £15.4s.3d thereby making them
"freeholders" of their respective holdings or farms. And
in 1583 his son, Edward Tirrell, of Aeshton in Essex,
conveyed to these freeholders the manor or lordship of
Cowling (as it was called) including "the commons, moors
and wastes and certain privileges and royalties to the
said manor belonging" and also released them from
payment of the quit rents. The freeholders, having in
this way become themselves co-owners of the lordship and
of the wastes and common lands thereof, including
Ickornshaw Moor, proceeded to convey to each freeholder
so many parts in the same, the whole being divided into
304 parts, and the number of parts taken by each
freeholder being proportionate to his quota of the total
amount of the former quit rents. For many years after
this time the draftsman of a conveyance of any farm
within the manor was careful to include in the
description of property conveyed the number of parts in
the moors, etc of Cowling to which such farm was
entitled, and though the practice has fallen into disuse
the right still remains.
The commons, moors and wastes of the manor, including
Ickornshaw Moor, thus became vested in the freeholders
as tenants-in-common, i.e. each of them had a separate
and defined but undivided share therein and they might
at any time have agreed to a division being made, each
taking his own share and giving up his rights in the
remainder. But they have never done this and in the
meantime each freeholder is entitled to exercise all the
right of ownership, e.g. shooting, pasturage, on the
whole of the said commons, etc. including Ickornshaw
Moor, in the same way that any one of several tenants in
common of a field can walk over the whole of it. They
may, of course, at any time agree to let such rights to
a tenant, and they have sometimes done so in respect of
getting lime boulders out of the back for burning, but
they have never, it seems, all agreed to let the
shooting; and it was the ill-advised attempt of a
would-be shooting tenant, who had obtained a lease of
the shooting from some of the freeholders to prevent
others from exercising their rights, which gave rise to
the disturbances in 1802.
But it must always be borne in mind that no one tenant
in common is entitled to exercise his rights in such a
way as to injure or diminish the enjoyment by his
co-owners of their similar rights, and although the moor
has never, it would seem, been "gaited" or "stinted"
i.e. the number of cattle or sheep which each freeholder
may turn on has never been defined, it is quite clear
that no one freeholder is entitled to turn on more sheep
whether his own or some other persons, or to shoot or to
allow others to kill more game than his share. What that
share is would have to be ascertained, e.g. by setting
the number of shares his farm is entitled to, as
compared with the whole 304 shares, against the number
of sheep that the moor can carry or the proper amount of
game that ought to be killed, or it may be that there
has been some more recent apportionment among the
freeholders or the respective rights. In any freeholder
were to pasture more sheep or kill more game than his
share the other freeholders would be entitled to take
legal proceedings to prevent him continuing to do so. It
is doubtful how far the sub-division by sales, etc. of
any particular farm, or the ownership of any property
other than a farm would entitle the present owners to
"freehold" rights. Another feature incident to a tenancy
in common, unless recent legislation has made any
alteration in the lay, is that if any one owner applies
to the Court for an order for partition or division of
the property between himself and his co-owners, the
Court is bound to make such an order; or if it is proved
that it would be more advantageous to the co-owners to
order a sale the Court may, and if a majority (in value)
of the co-owners so apply, it must order a sale. If such
an application were made by any freeholder it would
probable be found that it would be more to the advantage
of the freeholders as a whole to order a sale rather
than a partition, and if this were done the moor would
be sold by public auction as freehold to the highest
bidder, the nett proceeds divided among the freeholders
according to their shares, and all rights now exercised
on the moor (except rights of way) extinguished. This
course was actually adopted in the case of Stanbury
Moor, which belonged to the freeholders of Stanbury; the
Moor was sold by public auction about the year 1903
under an Order of the Court, and purchased by the
Keighley Corporation as part of the catchment area of
their water undertaking, and the nett proceeds of sale
divided among the freeholders.
It would seem, therefore, that the Acts for regulating
Commons, etc do not apply to Ickornshaw Moor, and that
neither the public nor the inhabitants, the
householders, nor the ratepayers of Cowling, as such,
have any rights over the moor, other than public rights
of way. |
