To the uninterested, the village of Manfield displays little outward
evidence, of having any historical background at all. However, when one investigates,
there is evidence of occupation long since deserted, and enough clues to encourage
the archaeologist and historian to explore further.
As far back as the Domesday Book, evidence emerges that the Manfield
of the twenty first century, has very different origins. Amongst a surprising number
of vills (hamlets, small villages within which holdings were leased) which even at
that time, showed signs of falling waste and yielding little or no income. Manfield
is listed as "reliqua est wasta" all that remains is laid waste, yielding little
or no income to the manor. At that time, "waste" could also refer to land, which
was by nature unproductive, but this is not a description that would fit the land
in and around Manfield, as we know it today. At that time, the 16 carucates (a
carucate being roughly, the amount of land, that could be ploughed by one plough
in a year) were the soke (under the jurisdiction), of the manor of
Count Allan of Gilling.) There was at this time, a fishery in the village, rented
at 10 shillings - a considerable sum. Most fisheries were along rivers, and could
take the form of a simple weir or netting system. The most common catch was Eels,
with revenues being derived from, sales of fish, net tolls etc. In the 1086 survey,
one fishery is shown on the Tees, presumably that of belonging to Manfield. So what
happened? it appears that there was wealth in and around Manfield, but that the
land itself was no longer productive. In some places, the reasons for this were
obvious - the result of warfare, of enclosure, even the encroachment of the sea and
tides in some areas. But Manfield? it can only be supposed that there may have
been a series of bad harvests, poor weather, or illness. Whatever happened, it is
not unrealistic to assume that if Manfield was in some state of decay in 1086, there
must have been a thriving community here for some considerable time, prior to its
demise. In 1823, the historian Cade said, "Manfield is now an insignificant village,
but anciently, a very considerable place of great interest, on an elevated situation
and probably once a British Oppidum (town), being everywhere strewn with small hillocks,
resembling tumuli, and neighbouring fields lined with the foundations of buildings
and other vestigia. Certainly, the evidence of visible earthworks, and archaeological
finds of coins and a Saxon ring, suggest occupation during the Saxon and Roman period.
Excavations by experts in this field, would no doubt, help fit together, some more
pieces in this exciting historical jigsaw puzzle. Back in 1952 and possibly before,
aerial photographs were taken, showing the earth works and ancient building outlines.These
photographs show that, at one time the village covered quite a considerable area,
as the outlines of sunken buildings and boundaries can be clearly seen. These facts
are borne out by research from the Lay Subsidy of 1301, which lists Manfield (Manefeld)
as having 33 taxpayers @ £7.6.0, the individual sums, ranging from 24/2d. To 8d.
This taxation was based upon, a ninth of all movable goods. Comparing the taxation
with, Richmond as having 67, Stanwick 11, Cliffe 12, Croft 17, Aldbrough 15, Middleton
Tyas 19, and Barton 28, Manfield was surely, a large and flourishing village of
some importance. As a result of a survey conducted in 1986 by English Heritage on
behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the village was included
in the schedule of listed monuments, and thereafter, referred to as National Monument
No.29502. Name: Manfield shrunken village and associated field system. It is understood
that, many years ago, a former vicars wife, burnt the details of his 20 years research
into the ancient history of Manfield. One can only reflect upon the wealth of information
he must have collected over that period. If this material had been available today,
it would have been a great asset in the compilation of a history of the village and
surrounding area, prior to 1800.
It would seem to be safe to say that the village made a recovery during
the period after the Domesday Inquest as will be seen in the following record showing
ownership of lands in later centuries. In researching the notable families of the
time, it becomes obvious that there are many discrepancies due to insufficient information,
incorrect recording, inaccuracies and illegitimacies!. We begin in the early 12th
century. The following lineage shows the descendants of Hermer, who had been enfeoffed
( given the holding as under-tenant) and held two knight's fees in Manfield in the
time of Count Allan (Allan 2nd). He was succeeded by his daughter Gutherith (also
known as Godreda) and in the middle of the 12th.Century, Earl Conan de Manfield conferred
to Torfin (Torphin) son of Robert, and his heirs. Manfield, with its appurtenances,
two knights' fees, as fully as his ancestor Gutheran held it, its waters, ways, in
borough (with its privileges given by charter?), and without withsoke and sac (sac
being a right or privilege, such as that of holding a court, granted to a lord of
a manor by the Crown), toll and theam and infanetheof. It has not yet been possible
to translate this in detail. It is interesting to note that Torfin, son of Robert,
was living at Michaelmas 1191, when he paid 100 marks for marrying his daughter
to whom he wished. He died before Michaelmas 1194, when his sons-in-law William
son of William and Hugh Gernegan owed 200 marks for having the land which had belonged
to him. The Manfield fee was in the honour of Richmond. That is to say, Manfield
was a holding in the larger estate of Richmond. As such, knights owed service to
the castle guard, and in the twelfth century, two knights from Manfield rendered
castle guard. Torfin had, like other great officials of the earl, specific station
at Richmond Castle, his being between the kitchen and the brewery. The lands comprising
the Manfield fee at that time, included the 16 carucates of Manfield itself, a part
of Kelfield, a part of Stillingfleet in the East riding, and four carucates in Heslington
near York. Hugh, son of Gernegan (Jernegan) held two and a half fees in Tanfield
and its appurtenances. He married Maud de Morvill, who survived him and became
lady of Tanfield in 1204, but the Manfield link was still unbroken. It is written
that in 1238 Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Hudswell, granted all his lands in Easby
to St.Agatha's Abbey. At almost the same time, Sir Gerard de Hipswell, Knight, of
Manfield, who was enfeoffed by the Morrills "quitclaimed" all his right in the
mill, its suits and fishery to St.Agatha's Abbey. This is almost identical to the
action of Torfin, son of Robert, who between 1162 and 1181 gave 7 acres of land to
the abbey on which to make a sheepfold, and quitclaim of the mill, its site and
pool, near the wood of Easby. Torfin made a number of gifts to the Abbey, one such
being the gift of ground in his meadow for the storage of tithes, for rent of 4p,
agreed at the fair at Richmond. It appears that, there were many uneasy relations
between the church and the landowners. Between 1138 and 1145, Godrida, daughter
of Hermer of Manfield, and Kelfield, gave 2 carucates of land in Kelfield to Selby
Abbey, which her father had given her. How Hermer held title in Kelfield has not
been established. (Kelfield is in the parish of Stillingfleet, near Selby.) In
around 1170-1191, Conan de Manfield gave 2 bovates of land to Marrick Priory, (1
bovate=one eighth of a carucate). In or around 1194, Torfin gave Geoffrey de Brettanby
2 bovates of land when he married Parnel, his daughter. Later, Maud gave Geoffrey's
son Gilbert another two bovates of land in Manfield, rendering a yearly income
of 1d!