Le servant suit par attorney, et le Master in propre persone. Que dit qe le servant fuit soun villein regardant al Manoire de _C._ et dit qil avoit mestre de ses services et de luy, pur qe nous luy prisoms come nostre viliein, come list a nous. Jugement si _etc._ tort in nostre party par tiel reteignement puit a.s.signer. _Et nota_, qil fist protestacion, qil ne conust pas qil fuit in le service le plaintiffe etc. _Et nota_, qe le servant dit auxi, qil fuit le villein le Master qi plede, et dit qil fuit distreint, et auxi les amis pur luy tanqe qil convensist par cohercion venir a ses Seigneours. _Burt._ Le servant est par attorney, qe ne puit par soun ple faire sans Master villein. Purqe ceo ple ne gist in soun bouche. _Et non allocatur_ par _Wilb._ qi dit qe le ple nest pas al breve: car mesqe il fuit icy in propre persone, et voillet conustre qil fuit villein ce nabat pas vostre breve (le quel qil fuit frank ou villein) si vous poies maintenir qil fuit in vostre service, si ce ne fuit par autiel mattier (come il ad plede) ou autre semblable. Et puis le servant weyva, et dit qil ne fist pas covenant etc. _Et alii e contra._ _Et nota_, qe l'opinion fuit, qe si villein fuit chace et distreint de venir a son Seignour propre, qe ce luy excusera del' penance del l'estatut. _Sed Burt. negavit_, eo qe ce vient de sa folie qil voilleit faire covenant dautre servir, qant il fuit appris qil fuit autry villein. _Et ideo quere._ Qant al' plea le Master _Burt._ challange ceo qil navoit pas alleger qil fuit seisi de luy come de soun villein. _Et non allocator_ par _Wilb._ Qui dit, sil soit soun villein, soun plee est a.s.sez fort: car seisi et nient seisi ne fera pas issue. _Et sic nota._ Puis _Burt._ dit que l'on allege est quil est soun villein regardant a soun manoire de _C._ nous dioms qe mesme le manoire fuit in le seisin un _A._ que infeffa le defendant de mesme le manoire; et dioms qe tout le temps que il fuit allant et walkant a large a sa frank volunte come frankhome, sans ce qil fuit unque seisi de luy in son temps, et cety qe ad l'estat _A._ ne fuit unques seisi de luy, tanques ore qil de soun tort demesne luy pris hors de nostre service. Purque nous nentendons pas que par tiel cause il nous puit ouster de nostre accord. _Finch._ Et nous Jugement, depuis qil ne dedit pas qil nest nostre villein de nostre manoire de _C._ et le quel nous fuit seisis de luy devant, ou non, ou nostre feffor seisi, _etc._ ou ce ne puit my estre a purpose: car il alast alarge, purtant ne fuit il enfranchy.

Purque _etc._ _Th._ Si vostre feffor ne fuit unques seisi de luy, coment qil vous dona le manoire, jeo di que ce de que il navoit pas le possession ne puit pas vestir in vous. Purque _etc._ _Jer._ Villeins regardants al' manoires sont de droit al' Seignour de prendre les a sa volunte, et sil face don le manoire a un autre, a quel heur que l'autre les happa, il est a.s.ses bon. _Th._ Sir, uncre mesque il soit issint entre luy et le grantor ou le villein, nous qe sums estrange ne serrons pas ly purtant: car si home qi soit estrange veigne in pais, et demurges par _xx_ ou _x.x.x_ ans, et nul home met debat sur luy, ne luy claime come seruant, il list a moy de prendre soun service, et de luy recevoir in mon service pur le terme solonque nostre covenaunt: et il nest pas reason qe jeo soy perdant, depuis qe in moy default ne puit etre ajuge, _causa ut supra_. _Gr._ Per mesme le reason qe vous luy purrets retenir tanque al' fine de terme, si poit un autre: _et sic de singulis, et sic in infinitum_: issint le Seignour ouste de soun villein a toujours, et ce ne seroit pas reason. Puis _Th._ n'osa pas demurrer; mes dit qil ne fuit pas soun villein de soun manoire de _C._ Prest etc. _Fiff._ Ceo n'est pas respons: _car coment qil nest pas soun villein del' manoire, etc. sil fuit soun villein in gros, a.s.ses suffist_. _Et non allocatur_ pur ce quel avoit traverse soun respons in le manere come ce fuit livere, etc.

Common Pleas Roll (Record Office).

[Trin. 29 E. III, r. 203, v. Oxon.]

Thomas Barentyn et Radulfus Crips Shephird attachiati fuerunt ad respondendum tam domino Regi quam Priori hospitalis Sancti Iohannis Ierusalem in Anglia quare, c.u.m per ipsum dominum Regem et consilium suum pro communi utilitate regni Regis Anglie ordinatum sit, quod si aliquis seruiens in seruicio alicuius retentus ante finem termini concordati a dicto seruicio sine causa racionabili vel licencia recesserit, penam imprisonamenti subeat et nullus sub eadem pena talem in seruicio suo recipere vel retinere presumat, et predictus Thomas predictum Radulfum nuper seruientem predicti Prioris in seruicio suo apud Werpesgrave retentum qui ab eodem seruicio ante finem termini inter eos concordati sine causa racionabili et licencia predicti Prioris recessit, in seruicium predicti Thome quamquam memoratus Thomas de prefato Radulfo eidem Priori rest.i.tuendo requisitus fuerit admisit et retinuit in Regis contemptum et predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem predictam. Et unde predictus Prior per Ricardum de Fifhide attornatum suum queritur quod c.u.m per ipsum Regem et consilium suum etc. ordinatum sit quod si aliquis serviens in servicium alicuius retentus ante finem etc. a dicto seruicio sine causa etc. recesserit penam imprisonamenti subeat et nullus sub eadem pena talem in seruicio suo recipere vel retinere presumat, predictus Thomas predictum Radulfum nuper seruientem predicti Prioris in seruicio suo apud Werpesgrove retentum scilicet die Lune proxima post festum Sancti Laurentii anno regni domini Regis nunc Anglie vicesimo octavo ad deseruiendum ei in officio pastoris etc.

scilicet die Lune in septimana Pentecostes a festo Sancti Michaelis Archangeli tunc proximo sequenti per unum annum proximum sequentem qui ab eodem seruicio ante finem termini ... recessit, in seruicium predicti Thome quamquam idem Thomas de prefato Radulfo eidem Priori rest.i.tuendo requisitus fuerit admisit et retinuit in Regis contemptum et predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem etc. et predictus Radulfus a seruicio predicti Prioris ante finem sine causa etc. videlicet predicto die Lune in septimana Pentecostes recessit in Regis contemptum ad predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem etc. unde dicit quod deteriorates est et dampnum habet ad valenciam viginti librorum. Et inde producit sectam.

Et predicti Thomas et Radulfus per Stephanum Mebourum attornatum suum veniunt. Et defendunt vim et iniuriam quando etc. et quicquid etc. Et protestantur quod ipsi non cognosc.u.n.t quod predictus Radulfus fuit seruiens predicti Prioris nec retentus c.u.m eodem Priore prout Prior superius versus eos narravit et predictus Thomas dicit quod predictus Radulfus est _villa.n.u.s suus ut de manerio suo de Chalgrave_ per quod ipse seisivit eundem Radulfum tanquam villanum suum prout ei bene licuit. Et hoc paratus est verificare unde pet.i.t iudicium si predictus Prior injuriam in persona sua a.s.signare possit. Et predictus Radulfus dicit quod ipse est villa.n.u.s predicti Thome ut de manerio predicto et quia idem Radulfus extra dominium predicti Thome morabatur parentes ipsius Radulfi districti fuerunt ad venire faciendum predictum Radulfum ad predictum Thomam dominum suum et ad eorum sectam et excitacionem idem Radulfus venit ad predictum Thomam absque hoc quod ipse retentus fuit c.u.m predicto Priore ad deseruiendum ei per tempus predictum prout idem Prior superius versus eum narravit. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et predictus Prior similiter. Et idem Prior quo ad placitum predicti Thome _dicit quod predictus Radulfus non est villa.n.u.s ipsius Thome ut de manerio suo predicto_ prout idem Thomas superius allegat. Et hoc pet.i.t quod inquiratur per patriam. Et predictus Thomas similiter. Preceptum etc.

III.

See p. 66, n. 2, and p. 78, n. 2.

The so-called Mirror of Justice is still in many respects an unsolved riddle, and a very interesting one, as it seems to me. The French edition of 1642 from which quotations are so frequently made presents a text perverted to such an extent, that the gentleman from Gray's Inn to whom we owe the English translation of 1648 took it upon himself to deal with his original very freely, and in fact composed a version of his own which turned out even less trustworthy than the French. Ancient MSS. of the work are very scarce indeed; the fourteenth century MS. at Corpus College, Cambridge, is the only one known to me; although there are also some transcripts of the seventeenth century. This means that the work had no circulation in its time. It is very unlike Bracton, or Britton in this respect, and indeed in every other. Instead of giving a more or less learned or practical exposition of the principles of Common Law it appears as a commentary written by a partisan, acrimonious in form, almost revolutionary in character, full of stray bits of information, but fanciful in its way of selecting and displaying this information.

'Wahrheit und Dichtung' would have been a proper t.i.tle for this production, and no wonder that it has excited suspicion. It has commanded the attention of the present generation of scholars notwithstanding the odd way in which the author, Andrew Horne, or whoever he may be, cites as authority fict.i.tious decisions given by King Alfred and by a number of legal worthies of Saxon times who never gave judgment save in his own fruitful imagination. This may be accounted for by peculiar medieval notions as to the manner in which legal discussion may be most efficiently conducted, but altogether the Mirror, as it stands, appears quite unique, quite unlike any other legal book of the feudal period. It must be examined carefully by itself before the information supplied by it can be produced as evidence on any point of English medieval history. Such an examination should lead to interesting results, but I must reserve it for another occasion. What I have said now may be taken simply as a reason for the omission in my text of those pa.s.sages of the Mirror which bear on the question of villainage. I may be allowed to discuss these pa.s.sages in the present Appendix without antic.i.p.ating a general judgment on the character of the book and on its value.

The author of the Mirror shows in many places, that he is hostile not only to monarchical pretensions, but also to the encroachments of the aristocracy. He is a champion of the lower orders and gladly endorses every rule set up by the Courts 'in favour of liberty.' In this light he considers the action 'de nativitate' as conferring an advantage upon the defendant, the person claimed as a villain, but considered as free until the contrary has been proved[854]. Another boon consists in the fact, that the trial must be reserved for the decision of the Royal Courts and cannot be entertained in the County[855]. So far the Mirror falls in with the usual exposition of our Authorities--it takes notice of two facts which are generally recognised as important features in trying a question of status. But the Mirror does not stop there, but further formulates an a.s.sertion which cannot be considered as generally accepted in practice, though it may have emerged now and then in pleadings and even in decisions.

It is well known, that the main argument in a trial of villainage turned on the question of kinship. As Britton (pp. 205, 206, ed. Nichols) states the matter, we are led to suppose that the plaintiff had to produce the villain kinsmen of the person claimed, and the defendant could except against them. Glanville (v. 4) says, that both parties had the right to produce the kindred and in case of doubt or collision a jury had to decide. If the fact of relationship were established on both sides, it was necessary to see on which side the nearer relatives stood.

Legal practice, so far as we can judge from the extant plea rolls, followed Glanville, although questions arising from these suits were much more varied and complicated than his statement implied. (See, for instance, Bracton's Note Book, 1041, 1167.) But in the Mirror we find the distinct a.s.sertion, that if the defendant in a case of 'nativity'

succeeded in proving a free stem in any generation of his ascendants, this was sufficient to prove him free[856]. This connects itself with the view, that there can be no prescription against free blood, a view which, as we have seen in the text, was in opposition to the usual conception that people may fall into servitude in the course of several generations of debas.e.m.e.nt. The notion embodied in the Mirror was lingering, as it were, in the background.

In accordance with this liberal treatment of procedure, we find our author all in favour of liberty when treating of the ways by which bondage may be dissolved. He gives a very detailed enumeration of all such modes of enfranchis.e.m.e.nt, and at least one of his points appears unusual in English law. I mean his doctrine that a serf ejected from his holding by the lord becomes free, if no means of existence are afforded to him[857].

The motive adduced is worthy of notice by itself. 'Servus dicitur a servando,' a serf is a man under guardianship, like a woman in this respect[858], and so, if the guardian forgets his duty of taking care of his subject, he forfeits his rights. The Roman derivation 'a servando'

is often met elsewhere, but instead of being applied to the bondman as a captive who has been kept alive instead of being slain, it is here made the starting point of a new conception and one very favourable to the bondman. It is not the only indication that the author of the Mirror had been speculating about the origin of servitude. By the law of nature all men are free, of course, but yet, says he, there exists by human law a cla.s.s of men to whom nothing belongs, and who are considered as the property of other people: an anomaly which he guesses may possibly come from the time when Noah p.r.o.nounced his malediction against Canaan, the son of Cham, or else from the defeat of Goliath by David[859].

It is curious too, and at first sight rather inconsistent, that our author sometimes speaks against those very serfs towards whom he seems, as a rule, so favourably disposed. He dwells on their disability, marks as an abuse that they are admitted to act in the courts without the help of their lords, although nothing can be owned by them[860], and, what is more, he insists on the necessity of their being excluded from the system of frank-pledge, which ought to be restricted entirely to free men[861]. All this seems rather strange at first, and certainly not in favour of liberty. It turns out, however, that these very qualifications are prompted by the same liberal spirit which we noticed from the first; they are suggested by a most characteristic attempt to draw a definite line between the serf and the villain.

The villain is no serf, in any sense of the word. He is a free man[862], his tenure is a free tenure[863]. He is enfeoffed of his land, with the obligation to till it, as the knight is enfeoffed of his fee in return for military service; the burgess enfeoffed of his freehold in the borough for a rent[864]. The right of ownership on the part of the villain is clearly recognised in the Great Charter, which prescribes the mode and extent of amercing villains, and thereby supposes their independent right of property, while the serf has nothing of his own, and could not be amerced in his own[865]. The author undoubtedly hits here on a point where the usual feudal theory had been discountenanced by statute: it was certainly difficult to maintain at the same time that the villain, as serf, had nothing but what had been precariously entrusted to him by the lord, and at the same time that he must suffer for misdeeds in the character of an owner. Strained in one sense the article of the Charter could be made to mean that, at the time of the Great Charter, there was no such thing as the civil disability of servitude in England. Strained in another sense suggested by the Mirror, it would lead to a standing distinction between villains, as owners, and serfs, as people devoid of civil rights. We know that legal practice preferred a compromise which was anything but consistent in point of doctrine, but, as I have said in my text, the notion of the civil right of the villain, and especially in his so-called wainage, seems to have been deep-rooted enough to counterbalance in some respects the current feudal doctrine.

It would have been difficult for the author of the Mirror to maintain that practice was in accordance with his theory; and he falls out of his part now and then, as, for instance, when he speaks of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the serf from whom the lord had received homage in addition to fealty--this is a case clearly applying to villains as well as to those whom he calls serfs, and it is not the only time that he forgets the distinction[866]. But when his attention is not distracted by details he takes his ground on the a.s.sumption that the original rights of the villains were gradually falling into disuse through the encroachments of the stronger people. We even find in the Mirror that the villains ought to have the a.s.sise of novel disseisin as a remedy in case of dispossession. If they were oppressively made to render other than the accustomed services they had to resort to the writ, 'ne injuste vexes,' and it is a sign of bad times that they are getting deprived of it. Edward the Confessor took good care that the legal rights of the villains should not be curtailed[867]. It is needless again to point out that this view of villainage is well in keeping with the fundamental notion which I tried to bring out in my text, the notion, namely, that the law of villainage contained heterogeneous elements, and had been derived partly from the status of free ceorls.

IV.

See p. 87, n. 1.

[Coram Rege 10 Henry III, N. 26. m. 4. d.]

a.s.sisa venit recognitura si Iohannes Cheltewynd iniuste etc. disseisiuit Willelmum filium Roberti de libero tenemento suo in Cheltewynd post ultimum etc. Et Iohannes venit et dicit quod non disseisiuit eundem Willelmum de aliquo libero tenemento quia villa.n.u.s suus est et nullum habet liberum tenementum et quod Robertus pater suus fuit villa.n.u.s. Et Willelmus dicit quod tenementum illud liberum est et quod Robertus pater suus libere tenuit de Ada patre Iohannis de Chetewod et per cartam quam profert in haec verba quod Adam de Chetwud concessit Roberto filio Wourami patri Willelmi et heredibus suis dimidiam virgatam terre c.u.m pertinenciis in Chetwud in feodum et hereditatem tenendam de eodem Roberto et heredibus suis libere quiete c.u.m omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus quas ceteri franci homines habent pro 26 denariis per annum reddendo pro omni servicio et pro omnibus rebus ad eum et heredes suos pertinentibus.

Et Iohannes bene cognoscit cartam illam et dicit quod idem Robertus fuit villa.n.u.s patris sui et per pecuniam domini sui redemptus fuit a seruitute et quod antequam esset liberatus a servitute fuit idem Willelmus nativus, et pet.i.t judicium si per cartam quam pater suus ei fecerat debeat esse liber tempore Iohannis c.u.m redemptus esset per pecuniam patris Iohannis et Robertus nichil proprium habuit c.u.m esset villa.n.u.s. Et dicit quod idem Willelmus non fuit nisi custos patris sui de eadem terra dum pater suus fuit alibi manens.

Post uenit Willelmus et retraxit se et ideo in misericordia Pauper est.

Et Iohannes dat ei III marcas et Willelmus remanet etc. Ita quod idem Willelmus ibit quoc.u.mque uoluerit. Et Iohannes quietum clamauit Willelmum de omni seruitute.

V.

See p. 90, n. 4.

[De Banco Roll, Michaelmas, 15 Edw. II, m. 271.]

Abbas de Sancto Edmundo attachiatus fuit ad respondendum Rogero filio Willelmi Henri homini praedicti Abbatis de manerio de Mildenhale quod est de antiquo dominico corone Anglie etc. de placito quare exigit ab eo alias consuetudines et alia servicia quam facere debent et antecessores sui tenentes de eodem manerio facere consueverunt temporibus quibus manerium illud fuit in manibus progenitorum Regis quondam Regum Anglie contra prohibicionem Regis etc. Et unde idem Rogerus per Petrum de Elyngham attornatum suum dicit quod ipse et antecessores sui et quilibet tenens unum messuagium et quindecim acras terre c.u.m pertinenciis in eodem Manerio sicut idem Rogerus tenet tempore quo Manerium illud fuit in manibus Sancti Edwardi Regis quondam Regis Anglie progenitoris Domini Regis nunc tenuit tenementa sua per fidelitatem et servicium inveniendi unum hominem ad tenendum vel fugandum carucam Domini singulis diebus anni quando caruce arare consueverunt tantum pro omni servicio et habere consuevit carucam Domini qualibet altera septimana singulis annis per diem Sabbati ad terram suam propriam arandam vel carucam illam aliis locandam et similiter s.e.xtam partem vesture unius acre ordei et medietatem vesture unius rode frumenti de melioribus tempore messis et prandium suum ad nonam singulis annis per s.e.x dies in anno in aula Domini sumptibus ejusdem Domini scilicet in diebus Sancti Michaelis, Omnium Sanctorum, Natalis Domini, Purificacionis Beate Marie, Pasche et Pentecostes et oblacionem suam singulis annis per quatuor dies in anno scilicet in diebus Natalis Domini, Purificacionis Beate Marie, Pasche et a.s.sumpcionis Beate Marie Virginis scilicet quolibet die unum denarium et per hujusmodi certas consuetudines et servicia ipse et omnes antecessores sui tenementa quae ipse modo tenet tenuerunt a tempore quo non exstat memoria usque ad tempus istius Abbatis quod idem Abbas praeter praedicta servicia exigit ab eo singulis vicibus quibus aliquis Abbas est de novo creatus finem ei praestandum pro capa sua ad voluntatem suam et pro filiis et filiabus suis maritandis et pro terris suis dimmittendis et pro ingressu habendo in hereditatem suam post obitum antecessoris sui finem similiter ad voluntatem suam ac idem Rogerus die Jovis proxima ante festum Apostolorum Simonis et Jude anno regni Domini Regis nunc quartodecimo apud Sanctum Edmundum in praesencia Thome de Wridervill Roberti Tillote Philippi de w.a.n.geford Roberti de Lyvermere et aliorum libera.s.set praedicto Abbati breve Regis de prohibicione et ei inhibuisset ex parte Domini Regis ne idem Abbas exigeret ab eo alias consuetudines et alia servicia quam ipse et antecessores sui tenentes de eodem Manerio facere consueverunt temporibus quibus Manerium illud fuit in manibus progenitorum Regis quondam Regum Anglie. Idem Abbas spreta regia prohibicione praedicta nihilominus postmodum exigit ab eo praedicta superonerosas consuetudines et ad ea sibi facienda per graves et intollerabiles districciones distringit quominus terram suam excolere potest unde dicit quod deterioratus est et dampnum habet ad valenciam centum librarum. Et inde producit sectam etc.

Et Abbas per Willelmum de Bakeham attornatum suum venit. Et dicit quod non debet praedicto Rogero ad hoc breve nec ad aliquod aliud breve respondere. Quia dicit quod idem Rogerus est villa.n.u.s ipsius Abbatis et villa.n.u.s ecclesie sue Sancti Edmundi. Et quod ipse seisitus est de ipso tanquam de villano suo unde pet.i.t judicium etc. Et Rogerus dicit quod ipse est h.o.m.o ipsius Abbatis de Manerio de Mildenhale quod est de antiquo dominico corone Anglie. Et quod Mildenhale sit de antiquo dominico Corone Anglie paratus est verificare per librum Domesday. Et super hoc inspecto libro praedicto comperta sunt in eodem verba subscripta.--Suffolk--Inter terras Stigandi quas Willelmus Denvers servat in manu Regis.--Lacforde Hundred. Mildenehalla dedit Rex Edwardus Sancto Edmundo et post tenuit Stigandus sub Sancto Edmundo in vita Regis Edwardi pro manerio xij carucate terre tunc et post x.x.x uillani modo x.x.xiij. Tunc viij. Bordarii post et modo xv. semper xvj. servi semper vj caruce in dominio et viij caruce hominum et xx acre prati ecclesia xl acrarum et j molendinum et iij piscaciones et dimidiam x.x.xj eque silvatice x.x.xvij averia et lx porci et Mille oves et viij socemanni x.x.x acrarum semper dimidia caruca. Huic iacet i bervita--Et quia ex verbis praedictis videtur Curie quod Mildenhale est de antiquo dominico corone etc. dictum est praedicto Abbati quod respondeat quod sibi viderit expedire etc.

Et Abbas dicit sicut prius quod praedictus Rogerus est villa.n.u.s suus et ecclesie sue praedicte et quod ipse seisitus est de ipso ut de villano suo et quod ipse et omnes Abbates de Sancto Edmundo praedecessores ipsius Abbatis ex tempore quo non extat memoria seisiti fuerunt de ipso Rogero et antecessoribus suis ut de villanis suis talliando ipsos alto et ba.s.so pro voluntate sua et faciendo de ipsis praepositos et messores suos et capiendo ab eis merchetum pro filiis et filiabus suis maritandis et finem pro terris suis dimittendis et pro ingressu habendo in terris et tenementis post mortem antecessorum suorum ad voluntatem ipsorum Abbatum. Et hoc paratus est verificare etc.

Et Rogerus dicit sicut prius quod ipse est h.o.m.o de antiquo dominico corone Anglie de praedicto Manerio de Mildenhale et quod ipse et omnes antecessores sui a tempore quo non exstat memoria tenuerunt tenementa sua praedicta de praedecessoribus praedicti Abbatis et de progenitoribus Domini Regis Regum Anglie quondam Dominis ejusdem Manerii per praedicta certa servicia et consuetudines in narracione sua superius contenta absque hoc quod praedecessores praedicti Abbatis fuissent seisiti de ipso Rogero aut antecessoribus suis ut de villanis suis talliando ipsos alto et ba.s.so vel faciendo de ipsis praepositos et messores aut capiendo de ipsis incertas consuetudines et servicia sicut praedictus Abbas dicit. Et hoc pet.i.t quod inquiratur per patriam. Et praedictus Abbas similiter Ideo praeceptum est Vicecomiti quod venire faciat hic a die Pasche in tres septimanas xij etc. per quos etc. et qui nec etc. ad recognicionem etc. Quia tam etc.

See p. 97, n. 2.

The Mildenhall trial just quoted may serve as an instance of litigation between lord and tenant of a manor in ancient demesne, when it took place before the Royal Courts. The Rolls of King's Ripton, Hunts, now published by Prof. F.W. Maitland, for the Selden Society, give an insight into the working of the Manorial Court itself when it had to decide between lord and tenant in a question of right (pp. 118 _et sqq._). Jane the daughter of William of Alconbury claims eight acres of land against the Abbot of Ramsey, lord of the manor. He does not choose to answer at once and takes advantage of all the procrastinations usual in such matters. Three times he gets summoned and does not appear; the Court proceeds to distrain him and after three distraints he essoins himself three times before making up his mind to answer by attorney and to ask a view of the land. Pleadings follow in the usual course, and ultimately a sworn inquest has to decide on the question whether the plaintiff was of full age at the time of a transaction through which the land claimed came into the hands of the Abbot. The point is, that the lord of the Manor is placed entirely on the same footing in regard to the action of his tenant as any other suitor.

In 1296 an action of dower occurs between a certain Maud Grayling and a number of persons holding land within the manor. It is opened by a _writ of right_ which is bound up with the roll, but has not been printed by Mr. Maitland as it does not contain anything of special interest. The beginning of this writ is typical--it does not mention the abbot, but only the bailiffs of the abbot: [Edwardus Dei gratia Rex Angliae] Dux Aquitaniae, Ballivis Abbatis de Rameseye de Riptone Regis Salutem.

Precipimus vobis quod sine dilacione et secundum con[suetudinem manerii de Riptone Regis ple]num r.e.c.t.u.m teneatis Matildi que fuit uxor Hugonis Grayling de medietate s.e.x messuagiorum s.e.xaginta et qua[tuor acrarum] et unius rode [terre dimidia acra prati] c.u.m pertinenciis in Riptone Regis, unde etc. (Court of Augmentation, Portf. XXIII, N. 94, r. 9). On pp.

100-104 Mr. Maitland gives the translation of two most valuable records of _Monstraverunt_ in the Court of King's Bench between the men of King's Ripton and the Abbot. The suit is very similar to that of the men of Mildenhall; and indeed all these ancient demesne trials turn on the same points.

VI.

See p. 91, n. 3.

The Stoneleigh Register, in the possession of Lord Leigh, is certainly one of the most interesting surveys of a medieval manor extant, and gives a better insight into the condition of ancient demesne than any other doc.u.ment I know of. Its publication would be particularly desirable in the interests of social history. This compilation is indeed a late one, but it has been made with great care and evident accuracy from the original records which go back even to Henry II's time. One part is especially important, because it gives selections from the Court Rolls of the Manorial Court. An extract from the compiler's Introduction will show the nature and grouping of his material.

F. 2, a: In quorum primo libro agitur de generacione n.o.bilium regum Anglie incipiendo modic.u.m ante conquestum usque ad presens sumarie concepta. Et de possessionibus et graciis per eos n.o.bis factis et collatis, tam in monasterio de Rademora quam in monasterio de Stonleya.

Ac eciam de diversis memorandis consuetudinibus, placitis, feuffamentis, diuisionibus tenementorum in villa et hamelettis de Stonle. Et de bundis et peranbulacionibus dicti manerii de Stonle. Ac subsequenter de actis abbatum de Stonle a tempore fundacionis quod infra int.i.tulabitur _usque ad presens videlicet usque ad feriam quartam in festo Sancti Gregorii pape anno domini millesimo trecentesimo nonagesimo secundo_, anno vero domini Regis Anglie Ricardi secundi post conquestum s.e.xto decimo. In secundo libro continentur memoranda de villis de Hartone, Cobsitone....

Erdyngtone.... In tertio libro continentur diversa memoranda tam nos quam alios tangencia et alia informatiua abbatum iuniorum consilia racionabilia secundum antiquas consuetudines, extentas, computaciones per quas poterit a nociuis abstineri, videlicet in diuisionibus possessionum et aliis faciendis pro bono et conseruacione juris monasterii. In quarto libro summarie scribuntur copie diuersorum priuilegiorum et diuersarum composicionum decimarum et placitorum. Et de diuersis casibus et defensionibus super eisdem. Item in casu quo facta esset commissio alicui abbati a curia Romana et a generali capitulo.

The following pa.s.sage is characteristic of the conception of ancient demesne: (4, a) Prefatus dominus Edwardus rex habuit in dominico suo iure hereditario manerium de Stonle c.u.m membris, videlicet Kenilworth, Bakyngtone, Ruytone et Stratone, una c.u.m aliis terris et maneriis. Que quidem maneria existencia in possessione et manu domini Regis Edwardi per universum regnum vocantur antiquum dominic.u.m corone Regis Anglie prout in libro de Domusday continetur.

See p. 116, n. 4.

F. 21, a: Henricus Dei gracia Rex ... venire facias coram n.o.bis Alexandrum de Canle ... et Hugonem le Seynsterer, ita quod sint apud Kenilworth in octabis Sti Edwardi ostensuri quo warranto subtraxerunt prefatis Abbati et Conventui quasdam consuetudines, libertates et jura ad Sokam de Stonle spectantes ... anno regis nostri quinquagesimo ... Et unde predictus Abbas pro se et Rogero Loueday _qui sequitur pro Rege_ dic.u.n.t quod, c.u.m manerium de Stonle fuit antiquum dominic.u.m domini Regis ... quilibet tenens ipsius manerii unam virgatam terre _consuevit reddere ipsi domino Regi per annum_ 30 denarios et facere sectam ad curiam suam de Stonle de tribus septimanis in tres ... predictus Alexander qui unam virgatam terre de antiquo et tres rodas de a.s.sarto tenet, de quibus reddit Roberto de Canle predictum redditum et 18 denarios pro predicta secta subtrahenda et pro predicto a.s.sarto denarium et obolum ... Predictus Robertus de Canle tenet duas virgatas terre pro 5 solidis et omnes tenentes predicti secundum tenuras suas detinent predicto Abbati predictas sectas pro quibus dictus Robertus de Canle capit a predictis tenentibus secundum tenuras [_folio_ 22] suas, scilicet pro una uirgata 30 denarios et de maiori tenura plus et de minori minus. Et de totis a.s.sartis capit totum seruicium....

Et predictus Alexander Hugo et alii veniunt et defendunt vim et injuriam etc.... et bene cognosc.u.n.t, quod antecessores eorum tenuerunt tenementa sua in dicto hameletto de progenitoribus domini Regis per seruicium 30 denariorum pro virgata terre ... et bene cognosc.u.n.t quod ipsi reddunt predicto Roberto de Canle redditus suos, sed qualiter ipse uel antecessores sui huiusmodi seruicia perquisierint, ignorant.... Jurati ... per sacramentum suum dic.u.n.t, quod tempore Henrici Regis avi domini Regis nunc tenuerunt omnes.... faciendo inde domino Regi seruicia et consuetudines ad tenementa sua pertinentes. Quo tempore quidam Ketelburnus antecessor Roberti predicti et vicinus ipsorum tenencium qui tenuit de Rege sicut alii vicini sui, et quia predicti tenentes domini Regis fuerunt exiles in bonis et predictus Ketelburnus fuit maior et discrecior eis, locuti fuerunt c.u.m ipso quod ipse colligeret redditum eorum et illum deferret pro eis ad curiam regis, tanquam per manum ipsorum. Et post mortem ipsius Ketelburni quidam heres ipsius Ketelburni accreuit et duxit in uxorem quandam sororem cuiusdam constabularii de castro de Kenilworth. Qui quidam heres ex permissione dicti constabularii atraxit ad se omnia servicia vicinorum suorum et reddidit antecessoribus domini Regis pro qualibet virgata dicte ville 30 denarios et fecit sectam pro eis ad curiam domini Regis. Et cepit pro secta predicta certum redditum et pro a.s.sartis predictis et ipsum redditum penes se retinuit ... [_folio_ 23] Dic.u.n.t eciam quod idem Robertus de Canle coram iusticiariis domini Regis ultimo itinerantibus in comitatu isto tulit _breve de natiuitate versus predictum Alexandrum Hugonem et alios et petiit eos, ut natiuos suos, et tunc ibidem declaratum fuit quod liberi fuerunt et ipse Ricardus remansit in misericordia. Unde dic.u.n.t, quod ipsi sunt adeo liberi penes se, sicut predictus Robertus penes se et tenere debent tenementa sua de domino Rege in capite...._ Et ideo consideratum est, quod dominus Rex recuperet seysinam suam ... et predictus Alexander Hugo et alii sint _intendentes domino Regi et balliuis suis uel illis quibus dominus Rex eos dare voluerit..._ Item coram eisdem justiciariis inquisicio facta fuit per preceptum domini Regis quod ... tempore quo rex Henricus avus domini regis Henrici filii regis Johannis contulit abbati manerium de Stonle c.u.m soka ... fuit idem Rex in seysina de toto manerio integro de Stonle ... et idem Abbas similiter in seysina ... quousque Petrus de Canle qui fuit collector redditus de Canle ad instanciam vicinorum suorum ad redditus illos deferendum domino Regi et pro eis soluendum, subtraxit a se per diuturnam colleccionem suam et per remissionem et negligenciam dominorum sine impedimento et calumpnia sectas, relevia, escaetas octo tenencium qui tenebant _octo virgatas terre de domino Rege et postea de Abbate de Stonle_ [_folio_ 23d] Anno regni Regis Henrici ... quinquagesimo primo ... _Dominus Rex habuit seysinam dicti hameletti per duas ebdomadas et deinde dominus Rex per vicecomitem suum posuit prefatum Abbatem in plenam seysinam dicti hameletti de_ Stonle die Sti Clementis eodem anno ad magnam crucem ville de Stonle.

See p. 117, n. 1.

The Stoneleigh Register has the following entry on f. 12: Memorandum quod tempore fundacionis fuerunt in manerio de Stonle lx et xiij _villani_ quatuor _bordarii_ c.u.m duobus presbyteris tenentes _x.x.x carucatas_ terre prout continetur in libro de Domesday, fuerunt eciam tunc quatuor _natiui siue serui_ in le lone (_sic_) quorum quilibet unum mesuagium et unum quartronem terre tenebat per servicia subscripta, videlicet leuando furcas ... et debebant ... redimere sanguinem suum et dare auxilium domino ad festum Sti Michaelis scilicet Ayde, et facere braseum et alia servicia seruilia, quorum nomina fuerunt Henricus Croud, cuius heres Iohannes Shukeburghe; secundus vocabatur Robertus Bedul, cuius heredes extincti sunt in prima pestilencia. Tercius fuit Galfridus Dore cuius eciam heredes extincti sunt in eadem pestilencia. Quartus fuit Robertus Stot qui eciam mortuus est sine herede. Fuerunt eciam _quatuor liberi tenentes_ in villa de Stonle qui tenuerunt hereditarie quinque mesuagia et quinque virgatas terre c.u.m pertinenciis de Rege in capite per seruicia sokemanrie, videlicet Paga.n.u.s de Stonle qui tenuit duas virgatas terre, qui Paga.n.u.s abavus fuit Iohannis de Stonle, patris Roberti le Eyr. Qui Iohannes de Stonle dedit unum quartronem terre Iuliane filie sue et Roberto Carteri marito dicte Iuliane, cuius heres est Iohannes Iulian. Dedit eciam prefatus Iohannes de Stonle c.u.m alia filia sua Alicia nomine unum mesuagium et unum quartronem terre Roberto filio Reginaldi Baugy, marito ipsius Alicie et ipsorum heredibus. Qui Robertus et Alicia dederunt dictum tenementum Willelmo filio Roberti Staleworthe de Flechamstede et heredibus suis prout inferius pleniter continetur. Quorum heres est linealiter Willelmus Staleworthe qui modo ea tenet. Predictus vero Robertus le Eyr dedit omnia residua tenementi sui c.u.m redditibus et seruiciis Ioanni Sparry et Iohanni Hockele approwatoribus Abbatis de Stonle. Et ipsi approwatores de licencia Domini Regis per breue ad quod dampnum predicta tenementa Roberti le Heyr dederunt Roberto de Hockele Abbati de Stonle et successoribus suis in perpetuum anno regni Regis Edwardi tercii post conquestum vicesimo....