Editorial

For me, this is an auspicious issue of The Local Historian, for its publication marks the tenth anniversary of my editorship. We can overdo the marking of anniversaries and, indeed, they now seem to be a peg on which to hang almost anything—recently on the radio I heard a concert which marked the 61^st anniversary of the opening of a venue, which hardly seems to be a cause for wild celebration. But I make an exception for the November 2011 issue of TLH. The temptation is, of course, to indulge in yet another retrospective and prospective approach: how did we do it then, how has local history changed over a decade, and what does the future hold. As to the last, I cannot say (though I confidently predict that in ten years’ time we will still be wringing our hands and delving into our philosophies over a) the shortfall in funding b) the academic versus amateur debate c) the parlous state of local history societies d) the value and merit of TV history … and other familiar issues).

With regard to the present state of local history, we are going through one of those periods—they come roughly every 25 years—when everything seems fluid and uncertain. Do other subjects have the same navel-gazing and introspective debates? Are those interested in natural history, or Baroque music, or stamp-collecting, similarly afflicted? Do they worry about theoretical underpinnings and overarching issues? I’m not sure, to be absolutely honest, how many local historians are actually worried about these matters anyway—maybe the Great Debates are actually confined to a very small group. We do in fact have much to be positive about—access to information has never been easier, publishing of local history in all its forms continues apace, there seems no danger of interest in the subject lessening, and popular awareness of local history (especially when linked with conservation, heritage and landscape issues) has never been greater.

The Local Historian seems to demonstrate this positive message. Yes, I am biased, but I do think that it continues to develop and to become more authoritative and respected as time goes on. We have no shortage of articles—indeed, I am constantly delighted by the frequency with which I receive offers of papers, or unsolicited typescripts appear by email or in the post, or historians ask if I would consider an article. The number, diversity and often very high quality of publications sent for review also gives great satisfaction. And the very positive comments that I receive allow me to conclude that TLH is on the right lines. It’s a great pleasure to be the editor, and a richly rewarding task.

Ten years on, I feel I should thank everyone who helps to make TLH such a success: particularly, Evelyn Lord as reviews editor, and Jane Howells as editor of Local History News, the patient recipient of countless emails from me, and the person who puts the web reviews and other content on-line on the BALH website. I’d also like to express my unbounded admiration and deep gratitude to the staff at Salisbury Printing, who do such an outstanding job in producing both publications and with whom I have developed a superb working relationship. And, of course, to you, dear readers, for your continuing support in so many ways. It is without compare, and very much appreciated.       

                                                                                                ALAN CROSBY

R.W. Hoyle, ‘Who owned Earls Colne in 1798 … or how to squeeze more from the Land Tax’, 267-277

In this important article Richard Hoyle, one of the country’s leading historians of the early modern period, introduces new perspectives on the Land Tax and its use in the analysis of local communities in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He uses as his case study the parish of Earls Colne in Essex, on which he has already written extensively with Professor Henry French. The article begins with an overview of the tax itself, explaining its history and the procedures for the collection of revenues – including the numerous changes which took place. The sizeable problems confronting any would-be analyst of the data are clearly identified, and Hoyle observes that because of these apparently insoluble difficulties the potential of the tax returns has never been fully realised.

He then considers the surviving documentation in The National Archives, providing an accessible introduction to the sources and their arrangement, and describing the particularly important question o f the redemption of the tax by payment of a lump sum. The extent of redemption (in the years around 1800-1804) is discussed. Hoyle draws attention to the potential for linking the tax returns themselves with the redemption certificates (which have never been subjected to historical analysis and thereby proposes new ways of exploiting the evidence of the taxation as a whole.

The article then discusses in detail the specific case of Earls Colne, with tabulated data showing the research potential. Topics analysed include the ownership of property ranked by size of payment, and calculations whereby the amount paid may be used to determine the worth of land and the structure of individual estates. The important question of absentee owners is investigated, and there is a very valuable consideration of the potential for looking at portfolio estate ownership, whereby owners held land in varying proportions in a number of parishes. It is suggested that such studies will allow us to be more aware of the entirety of property ownership, which a focus on a single community does not permit. In the concluding paragraph it is argued that using these sources we may see the rise and fall of estates, gain new information on landownership, landholding and farm size, and even approach the challenging topic of the distribution of wealth.

Andrew Wareham, ‘The hearth tax and empty properties in London on the eve of the Great Fire’, 278-292

Andrew Wareham is director of the British Academy Hearth Tax Project at the University of Roehampton, and in this article he presents recent research findings concerning the tax in London and Middlesex, highlighting issues of interpretation which will be applicable elsewhere for other counties. He begins his article by emphasising the importance of seeing the hearth tax in the context of wider contemporary social and economic trends, and follows this with a detailed account of hearth tax manuscript research, showing how certain historians-notably C.A.F. Meekings and Jeremy Gibson, have helped to unlock the great potential that the tax returns provide. The article then considers the important question of the variations in the returns over time, pointing out that careful consideration of the individual year and the specific local circumstances is required.

The next section focuses on the opportunities afforded by computer analysis of the data, beginning by setting out the different views of researchers (notably Margaret Spufford and Tom Arkell) and then looking at current initiatives and approaches to computer analysis of the data. Wareham emphasises the sheer quantity of information which the hearth tax returns provide, and draws our attention to the under-used potential of the exemption certificates.

He then analyses key aspects of the returns for London and Middlesex, with particular reference to the geographical and social distribution of wealth; the contrasts between urban and rural communities within the same administrative unit; and the problems posed by inns and alehouses which, with their heated guest-chambers, distort the figures. The article then focuses on a hitherto little-regarded question, that of empty properties (in contrast to the occupied properties which were taxed and the occupied properties which were exempt). The detailed analysis of the figures for the London and Middlesex returns are placed in the context of those for Kent (where only 1.8% of houses were empty in 1664, but with very marked concentrations in Blackheath hundred, closest to London). There follows a closely analysed assessment of the implications of the statistics for London, considering not only the figures but also the fascinating socio-economic circumstances which aid their interpretation. The concluding section of the article gives a stimulating overview of how the hearth tax can be used by local historians in their own research, a task aided by the comprehensive set of notes and references.

John S. Lee, ‘Landowners and landscapes: the Knights Templar and their successors at Temple Hirst, Yorkshire’, 293-307

This article is a version of a Wolfson Lecture delivered by John Lee at Cambridge in 2009. It is a detailed account of the estates and buildings of the Knights Templar at Temple Hirst, which lies beside the River Aire five miles south of Selby. The estate was held by the Knights Templar from about 1152 until the forcible dissolution of the Order in 1311, and then passed to a succession of secular landowners. As with other properties held by the Order, the place-name evidence is remarkably enduring despite the relatively brief quasi-monastic tenure. The paper begins with a general account of the Order and its properties in Britain, and then considers the scattered and often fragmentary early documentary references to Temple Hirst itself. The relationship between this and other Yorkshire properties is discussed.

The documentary, archaeological and architectural evidence for the buildings and the layout of the preceptory complex is presented, before a more substantial account of the estate and its assets and resources. This draws attention to the different landscapes and soil types, and the important agricultural work (including land drainage) which the Templars undertook here, and on properties elsewhere in the country. The suppression of the Order in the early fourteenth century is explained, and the latter part of the article shows the subsequent history of the preceptory buildings and the estate, a story determined by the vagaries of fortune experienced by the various landowning families into whose hands the property passed. The article is a valuable contribution to Templar studies and also demonstrates a successful approach to reconstructing the history of a specific estate. The very comprehensive notes provide a very useful bibliography of published sources on the Knights Templar and their history.

Martin Stilwell, ‘Housing the workers: early London County Council housing 1889-1914’ 308-320

In this article Martin Stilwell discusses the major housing programme which was planned and partly implemented by the London County Council in the later Victorian and Edwardian periods. He begins by explaining the background, summarising the key issues of overcrowding, squalor, high rents and inadequate supply which shaped the housing experience of poorer Londoners in the mid-nineteenth century, and then considers the creation of the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1855 and its eventual replacement by the County Council (1889) and London boroughs (1899). He then explains the key legislation which gave powers and responsibilities in the field of housing and which provided the means for the LLC to intervene in housing provision. The early moves towards slum clearance and the debates about the quality and resign of replacement housing – including the opinions of the private philanthropists – are discussed.

The LCC employed young architects with proven ability, and they developed a series of characteristic and relatively standardised designs, with Arts & Crafts motifs, and these represented a very important advance on existing housing provision. Unfortunately, the rents were significantly higher than the poorer potential tenants could afford. The article provides a detailed case-study of the Churchway scheme, between St Pancras and Euston Stations, built in 1901. The financial and planning aspects are discussed, in the context of the attitude of landowner – one of whom was philanthropically-minded and supported the proposal. The conclusion provides an overview of the LCC’s work in the period before 1914, and shows how the housing programme foreshadowed the Council’s ambitious garden estate policy of the post-1918 period.

Julie Bagnall, ‘What to do with 323 postcards’, 321-325

This brief article begins with a general observation about primary sources in local history research and analysis, and suggests that postcards are an underused and generally overlooked source. They are normally considered of value only to collectors, and are frequently thrown away or discarded. But Julie Bagnall argues, they give important insights into the personal experiences of ordinary individuals and therefore may have a special potential importance. The article is built around Julie’s own analysis of a collection of 323 postcards which she bought in 1992. She describes the historical research which she undertook on the collection, identifying the senders and recipients and building-up the story of the family and its experience. The second half of the article introduces some perspectives on the collection as historical evidence and the insights which they give into individual circumstances and the wider story of the period from 1904 to 1930 during which they were written, sent and eventually collected into a large album.  

Jacquelené Fillmore, ‘Local history internet sites: an update for 2011’, 320-334

The quantity of local history resources available on the internet continues to increase exponentially, and their importance as a research tool becomes ever more apparent. Finding a way through the multitudes of sites, and being able to weigh up those which are reliable and worthwhile or, in contrast, those which are heavily prejudiced and cannot be regarded as authoritative, is a challenging task. They are often difficult to track down and much harder to assess. Building upon similar articles published in each year since 2007, this paper updates the earlier listings (with details of name and address changes, and sites no longer extant), and then identifies and provides details of some 74 new (or newly-listed) sites, ranging from one concerning Art History Timelines and another on Britain’s Small Wars, to Winning Equal Pay and Workers’ War. There are also references to some local place-specific sites (including those published by local history societies) which are of special quality, and a final section reviews in detail three sites—Capital Punishment U.K., the Plastics Historical Society, and the Glens of Antrim Historical Society. The article will be an invaluable resource in its own right, and feedback emphasises that many local historians regard it as a major contribution to their work.