15. The Poll Tax of 1379

In 1379 Parliament granted a "poll" Tax - this was a tax on the head of each person above fifteen years old. The tax was 1/- for each person. In most places the collectors went round assessing the number of shillings each village must pay by the number of 'heads'. This sum was then shared out, a rich man might pay considerably more than his shilling, and a poor man pay correspondingly less. At Sutton this does not seem to have been the case. Only one man paid a shilling, no one paid more, and the majority paid fourpence only.

In many parts of the country the people rose against the collectors of the tax. We have no record that any disturbances took place in this district because of the tax.

The list of taxpayers is interesting because it is the first list of inhabitants of Sutton which has been preserved. From it we are able to calculate roughly the number of people then living in Sutton. The actual names are interesting, some still have a local connection.

There are twenty-one names on the list. The first fourteen are married men. They paid the tax for themselves and their wives. The next six names are of women and the last of a younger man.

As stated above the highest amount paid by any man of Sutton was 1/-. Robert Copley paid this. He evidently belonged to an important family, for in 1531 a John Copley was lord of the Manor of Sutton. As the chief man paid only a shilling we may judge that Sutton in those days was poor.

John Bryd and his wife paid the next highest amount - sixpence for the two of them, all the other inhabitants paid fourpence.

The first name on the list is John Harper. The name was evidently common in the village at this time, for besides this man and his wife, we have Roger Harper and his wife and also Alice Harper an unmarried woman. Up to the middle of last century the name was still familiar. Now it is preserved in the name 'Harper Square' and also in an old doorway bearing the name and the date 1639.

The next names are Willelmus Estburn, Adam Jonson, Adam filius Philippi, Rogerus Harper and Thomas del Stanes all with their wives. The first of the men had evidently at some time come from the neighbouring village of Eastburn. Adam is given no surname. This would be quite common in those days, this practice has died out at Sutton but at Cowling, a village about three miles away many people are still referred to as somebody's son. In this case however, the 'son of' is shortened to 'o' e.g. Dick o' Tom o' Bill's.

The name William de Bent is interesting. There is still a district of Sutton called 'The Bent', there is a Bent Farm and also Bent Lane. Evidently William held land or lived in this area.

The surname Baret occurs twice in the list. Later we know that the Baret family also held land near the Bent. The surname is still very common in the village.

John Warelewythes and his wife are next. The surname is strange and seems to have no connection with the village. At Black Lane Ends however the surname Warelewythes is still to be found, perhaps John and his wife left the bleak moor and came to Sutton, hoping for an easier life. William Mason's name suggests there was at least one man in the village who carried on a definite trade, apart from agriculture.

Among the women at the end of the list are Agnes, wife of Hugonis, and two women of the name Alice, who are both 'filia Hugonis', but no Hugonis is mentioned. Agnes was evidently a widow. Johanna de Northwod possibly lived near North Field. Matilda del Stanes may have been the daughter or sister of Thomas del Stanes.

Judging from this list we can say that there would be under a hundred people men, women and children living in Sutton at this time.

From this Poll Tax we are able to compare the status of Sutton with its neighbours. Of the eight townships which made up the ancient parish of Kildwick, Sutton is next to the bottom. Farnhill heads the list, and then follow Silsden, Steeton and Bradley, Cowling and Glusburn paid an equal amount, then comes Sutton, and lastly Kildwick.

These positions can be compared with those of today in regard to population. Silsden is now an urban township and at the census of 1921 had a population of 4,815. The other seven are still rural townships. Glusburn is next to Silsden with a population of 2,587. We must notice however, that within the last hundred years a new village has grown up. This is Cross Hills and is taken with Glusburn in finding population. The next on the list is Steeton with 2,274, here again another village is included. Sutton follows with 2,223. Cowling has 1,795, Farnhill 657, Bradley 567, Kildwick 169.

In comparing these lists we find that Farnhill has fallen from first place to sixth. The reason for this is that from some date after Domesday, Farnhill was taken with Cononley for all assessments until 1865. The reason for this is probably found in the site of Farnhill Hall. The present building commands both villages, probably some older Hall was the dwelling place of the owner of both places. Bradley has also fallen in the list. In this village the mills are not large and a considerable proportion of the people work on the land. The villages which have risen in the list, Silsden, Steeton, Sutton and Glusburn are those where the mills are larger and employ most of the people.