Village Web Site Forum

Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:38
1848 OS map of detached part of Sutton
I've set up a page in the gallery showing an 1848 OS map of the end of Sutton Lane. An area is marked as "SUTTON Detd", so presumably this land was part of Sutton but detached from it. Does anyone have any more information about this or how the boundaries changed?
David loss
Sutton beck side
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 21:07
I was looking at you map which is very interesting, this isnít directly related your question, but I own the land on the far side of the river from the the 10 acre field. our deeds go back to about 1840 and the land is shown to be owned by a merchant / miller from Heben bridge. The land further up (opposite the cricket field) was purchased from the estate of James Barstow in the late sixties. I would love to hear from anyone who knows how and why the lower section was separated from the Barstow control and weather or not this has had a bearing on the way the road / path was run. Iíve been told horses used to use the river as a road, but could nerve understand why the left the river only to re enter higher up to cross the ford. would appreciate any help.
Terry Longbottom
Valley
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 22:43
David I think your James Barstow is in fact James Bairstow a descendant of Thomas & Mathew Bairstow a Family of merchant/millers that lived at knot house and bought Sutton corn mill and went on to build the woollen mill in Sutton. As for horses walking in and out of the beck ,try walking in the beck when there is a fresh on.
Terry Longbottom
Valley
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:47
I must apologize for my rather flippant remark about the horses, yes they did walk in the beck for a short way. Opposite the top end of alder wood Old Lane ramped down to bed of the stream it ramped back up next to the bridge. The ramp near the bridge was disturbed when the road and bridge was realigned. Old lane precedes the lane to Eastburn and was the main route to the east, out of Sutton before the turnpike was built.
Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 13:52
Andrew Monkhouse has a postcard showing Lane End Field circa 1910, he kindly sent me a scan which I've added to the gallery.
David loss
Sutton beck side
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 18:22
Hello Terry, i quite agree, if you look at the river today you would not want to trying to walk along the stream bed, however, there is an old photo in the gallery that shows the foot bridge and there is hardly any water in the stream at all, i think when all the mills were in use and using water, the volume in the cut was probalby a lot less than what we have got used to in recent years.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Thursday, May 16, 2013 00:21
Hi all, I'm wondering whether the Lane End Field circa 1910 image added to the gallery shows some of the land referred to as "SUTTON Detd" on the 1848 OS map of the end of Sutton Lane?

Secondly can anybody identify the large house to the right of the picture, would this be Springfield? Thanks :-)
Tony Ingham
Sutton
Saturday, May 18, 2013 15:01
Hello Andrew, The (house) to the right of the picture looks very much like the stable block and groom's quarters built for Spring Field. They have been converted in to two or three dwellings now.
Spring Field is more central behind the trees in the picture out of sight.(Shame)
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Monday, May 20, 2013 01:13
Thanks very much Tony, this confers with what Allen Chapman said when I emailed him the image about 3 years ago, he thought the building on the right looked like the Old Stable Block at the top of Knott Lane although he wasnít 100% certain.

Yes, shame that Springfield House is blocked out by the trees. Iím surprised there are not more images of Springfield in the gallery. To my knowledge there is only the one photo which shows an overgrown Springfield with ivy and other foliage.
Anthony Hattersley
Barnsley
Thursday, May 23, 2013 18:20
The paragraph with the map mentions horse racing.
I can remember in the late 50's going to the field to watch trotting races, even remember that the carriages were called sulkies. Saw one strapped to the back of a horse box last week, my wife was impressed that I knew what it was called!
Robin Longbottom
Oakworth
Sunday, May 26, 2013 07:28
The two fields shown on the 1848 map were known as the Lower Copley Ing and the Middle Copley Ing. It would appear that prior to the inclosures (that took place between the 16th to 19th centuries), the township of Sutton enjoyed rights of common in an area of common land that fell within the township of Eastburn. When the land in Eastburn was inclosured, the township of Sutton lost it's rights and had to be compensated for this loss. Sutton was therefore allocated Lower and Middle Copley Ing and this would account for the anomaly of the detached piece of land within the township of Eastburn. It is unclear when this settlement was agreed, but it may well have been after the construction of Sutton Lane in the late 18th century, as this provides the only acess to the land. Similar settlements are recorded in other townships.
Terry Longbottom
Valley
Sunday, May 26, 2013 13:20
If Robin is correct which donít doubt that he is, are the houses now constructed on some of that land actually in Sutton and if so are they in North Yorkshire, which one may assume that two semidetached houses in the same block may be in two different segments of Yorkshire. or one house may be in both West and North Yorkshire.
Robin Longbottom
Oakworth
Sunday, May 26, 2013 17:42
An act of Parliament in 1883 sorted out parish boundaries and did away with discrepancies such as the Sutton land in Eastburn. If by chance it was missed the Local Government Reorganisation Act 1974, which came into force that year on April Fools Day, certainly put the two fields well and truly in Eastburn.

Prior to the 1883 Act the Sutton township boundaries had been surveyed in 1840-1 as required under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1838. Before this young children were walked around the village boundaries and had their heads banged on various stones and markers so they wouldn't forget them, or so I am lead to believe.
Robin Longbottom
Oakworth
Monday, May 27, 2013 11:36
Just a note on Eastburn. It was not a township in it's own right, having merged with Steeton in the late 13th C to form Steeton with Eastburn (as was Sutton and Malsis). The inclosure act for Steeton (and Eastburn) was passed in 1787 when 300 acres of Steeton Moor was divided up and allocated to the freeholders of the township. 1787 therefore appears to be the latest date that the settlement of the two fields on Sutton could have taken place.



  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.