-- Tenentes Abbatis { -- Robertus le Caus tenet in eadem j. mesuagium et in eadem. { ij. virgatas terrae de Abbate de Eygn', et reddit { per annum dicto Abbati Eygn' iij._s._ -- Hundr' in { -- Stepha.n.u.s le Niwe tenet in eadem j. mesuagium Aston'. { et ij. virgatas terrae de eodem, et reddit per { annum dicto Abbati xv._s._ vij._d._ ob. q.

{ -- Robertus de Haddon' tenet in eadem j. mesuagium { [et] j virgatam terrae de Domino W. de Valencia, { et reddit per annum dicto W. de Valencia j._d._ -- Servi. { -- Henricus Toni tenet in eadem j. mesuagium [et]

{ j. virgatam terrae de Abbate de Eygn', et reddit { eidem pro redditu iiij._s._ pro opere iiij._s._ { iiij._d._ ob. q.

{ -- Willelmus Toni tenet in eadem j. mesuagium [et]

{ j. virgatam terrae de dicto Abbate, et reddit per { annum eidem pro redditu iiij._s._, pro opere { iiij._s._ ix._d._ ob. q.

{ -- Nicholaus Toni tenet in eadem consimile { tenementum de eodem pro consimili servicio { faciendo eidem.

{ -- Emma Lovel tenet in eadem j. mesuagium et { dimidiam virgatam terrae c.u.m v. acras de eodem, { et reddit per annum dicto Abbati xj._s._ iij._d._

{ -- Johanna Galard tenet in eadem dimidiam virgatam { terrae de dono Willelmi fratris sui, et reddit { eidem per annum vj._d._; et idem Willelmus tenet { de hereditate per defensum antecessorum suorum, -- Lib[ere] { qui dictam dimidiam virgatam terrae habuerunt tenentes. { de dono Reg[is], cujus nomen ignoramus.

{ -- Thomas Wyteman tenet in eadem j. virgatam terrae { de Philippo de Lenethale, et est de confirmatione { Reg[is], ut dicta dimidia virgata terrae { praescripta; et tenetur de Willelmo Gallard { praedicto, et reddit per annum dicto Philippo { xij._d._

[The Abbot above mentioned was the Abbot of Eynsham.]

The _Hundr. in Aston_ in the margin can hardly admit of any other extension but _hundredarius_ or _hundredarii_. It seems then, that the term is applied to three tenants named first. The reason for thinking so is, that all these three are a.s.sessed at certain rents without any mention of labour services, whereas the three tenants who are next mentioned pay so much as rent and so much more in commutation of labour service, 'pro servitio.' The inference would be, that the names in the beginning apply to people burdened with suit to the hundred and to the shire, and therefore exempted in other respects. Their rents are very unequal, but in any case lower than those of the men immediately following. One very important feature admits of no dispute; the hundredors are described as _servi_, that is villains, in opposition to the free tenants of the Abbot of Eynsham. We know already from the text that the hundredors, if the name be applied here as in the Ely Surveys, occupied an intermediate position, and in one sense had certainly to rank with the villains, people of base tenure belonging to the townships.

Even a more difficult example is contained in the fragment of the Warwickshire Hundred Roll. The oft-mentioned description of Stoneleigh in that doc.u.ment begins of course with the demesne land of the abbot, then mentions two villains and thirty free cotters holding 'ad terminum vitae.' Then follows a list of five more free cotters. On the margin between the two sets we read 'de hundred de Stonle.' To whom does this phrase apply? There is nothing in the tenure which would enable us to make a positive distinction between the two sets, and it would seem that the expression has in view some duties a.s.signed in the roll to the first thirty tenants in conjunction with the villains. It is written immediately in front of the following pa.s.sage: 'Omnes supradicti cotarii ipsius abbatis debent sectam ad curiam suam bis in anno. Et si contingat quod aliquis captus sit in dicto manerio debet imprisonari apud Stanle et tunc omnes villani et cotarii supradicti ipsum servabunt et in custodia eorum erit dum ibi fuerit sumptibus suis et sumptibus tocius manerii.'

The uncertainty of terminology is not without its meaning: the word 'hundredarius' did not get into general use, but it was used in several places for different purposes. It may apply to a bailiff of the hundred, perhaps to the alderman, to the standing representative of a village at the hundred court, and possibly to all the free men who had to do personal suit to this court. It is not in order to impose a uniform sense upon it, that I have treated of it at this length. But in one of its meanings, in that which is given by the Ely Surveys, we find a convenient starting point for discussing the position of an important and interesting cla.s.s in which the elements of freedom and servitude appear curiously mixed.

XII.

See p. 199, n. 1.

It did not occur to the men of the thirteenth century that it would be important to distinguish between the different modes by which free tenements had been created. To draw the princ.i.p.al distinction was enough for all practical purposes. Stray notices occur however that give some insight into the matter. Very often we find tenements held _per cartam_, probably because this kind of t.i.tle was rather exceptional and seemed to deserve a special mention, while commonly land was held without charter, on the strength of a ceremonial invest.i.ture by the lord. This last mode does not find uniform expression in the doc.u.ments, but the implied opposition to holding by charter is sometimes stated in express terms which bring out one or the other feature of free land holding.

One of the questions addressed to the jurors--from whose verdicts the Hundred Rolls were made, was--Si aliquis liber sokemannus de antiquo dominico alii sokemanno vendiderit vel alio modo alienaverit aliquid tenendum libere per cartam[870]? The _free_ sokeman's tenure is meant, although the inquest is taken on ancient demesne soil, and the point is that none of these persons can alienate by charter, but must use the ceremonial surrender in the court of ancient demesne according to the custom of the manor. I have already drawn attention to the remarkable opposition between free customary tenure and holding by charter. It is chiefly important because it discloses a traditional element in the formation of the socman's tenure.

The same traditional element appears in other cases in which the special position of the socman is not concerned. In Warwickshire a free tenant by sergeanty is said to hold his land without charter by warrant from ancient times, and the peculiar obligations of his sergeanty are described at some length[871]. The charter appears here in contrast with ancient ownership, to the origin of which no date can be a.s.signed. A similar case is that of Over, Cambs.[872] Robert de Aula holds two virgates of the Abbot of Ramsey _de antiquo conquestu_ and seven virgates _de antiquo_. Further on a certain Robert Mariot is mentioned holding five virgates of Robert de Aula _de antiquo feffamento_. The weight falls, in all these expressions, on the _de antiquo_, which may even appear without any further qualification. Of these qualifications one is interesting in itself, I mean 'de conquestu.' In the language of those times it may stand either 1, for conquest in the sense in which that term is now commonly used, or 2, for purchase, or 3, for occupation. The first of these meanings is naturally out of the question in our case. The second does not apply if we take heed how the expressions interchange: it could be replaced by feoffamentum in the third instance, and could not have fallen out after de antiquo in the second. Ancient occupation fits well, and such a construction is supported by other pa.s.sages. In Ayllington (Elton), Hunts, e.g., we find the chief free tenants all, with one exception, holding _de conquestu_ in contrast with the mesne tenants who are said to hold _per cartam_. The opposition is again clearly between traditional occupation and new feoffment settled by written instrument. In Sawtrey Beaumeys, on the other hand, the mode of holding de conquestu seems exceptional[873].

Another terminological opposition which finds expression in the surveys is that between men who hold _per homagium_ and those who hold _per fidelitatem_. It seems to be commonly a.s.sumed that free tenements owe homage, but without disputing the point in a general way I shall call attention to the description of Kenilworth in the Warwickshire Roll, in which _libere tenentes_ are said to hold _per fidelitatem et nullum faciunt homagium_[874]. The deviation must probably be accounted for by the fact that the castle of Kenilworth was Royal demesne and had been given to Edmund, the brother of King Edward I; the peculiar condition described was certainly a species of customary freehold or socman's tenure.

The upshot is, that we find in the Hundred Rolls traces of freeholds possessed by ancient tenure, 'without charter and warrant,' according to customs which came down from the time of the Conquest, or the original occupation of the land, or from a time beyond memory. The examples given are stray instances but important nevertheless, because we may well fancy that in many cases such facts escaped registration. And now how are all these traces of the 'traditional' element to be expressed in legal language? From what source did the right of such people flow? How did they defend it in case it was contested?

The absence of a charter is not by itself a reason to consider this kind of tenure as separated from the usual freehold. A feoffment might well be made without a charter[875]. As long as the form of the invest.i.ture by the lord had been kept, it was sufficient to create or to transmit the free tenancy. But the warranty of the lord and the feoffment were necessary as a rule. And here we find cases in which there is no warranty, and the lord is not appealed to as a feoffor. They must be considered as held by surrender and admittance in court and as being in this respect like the tenements of the sokemen. I do not see any other alternative. As to the sokemen we find indeed, that their right is contrasted with feoffment and at the same time considered as a kind of free tenancy, that it is defended by manorial writs, and at the same time well established in custom[876]. But can we say that the warranty of the lord is less prominent in this case than in the _liberum tenementum_ created by the usual feudal invest.i.ture? Surrender seems to go even further in the direction of a resumption by the lord of a right which he has conferred on the dependent. If surrender stood alone, one would be unable to see in what way this customary procedure could be taken as an expression of 'communal guarantee.' But the surrender is coupled with admittance. The action of the steward called upon to transmit by his rod the possession of a plot of land is indissolubly connected with the action of the court which has to witness and to approve the transaction. The suitors of the court in their collective capacity come very characteristically to the front in the admittance of the socman, and it is on their communal testimony that the whole transaction has to rest. The Rolls of Stoneleigh and of King's Ripton give many a precious hint on this subject[877].

I speak of the socmen in ancient demesne, but there can be no doubt that originally the different cla.s.ses of this group called socmen were constantly confused and treated as one and the same condition. The free socmen and the base or bond socmen, the population of manors in the hands of the crown, of those which had pa.s.sed from the crown to subjects, and, last but not least, a vast number of small proprietors who held in chief from the king without belonging to the military cla.s.s, and without a clearly settled right to a free tenement--all these were treated more or less as variations of one main type. What held them together was the suit owed to some court of a Royal Manor which had 'soke' over them[878]. Ultimately cla.s.sification became more rigid, and theoretically more clear; free and socman's tenure were fused into the one 'socage' tenure, well known to later law, but we must not forget that Common Law Socage is derived historically from a very special relation, and that the socman appears even in terminology as distinct from the 'libere tenens.' I must admit, however, that it is only with the help of the doc.u.ments of Saxon times and of the Conquest period, that it will be possible to establish conclusively the character of the tenure as that of a 'customary freehold.'

XIII.

See pp. 233, 234.

The pa.s.sage on which the text of these two pages is based may be found in a Survey of the Dunstaple Priory. The portion immediately concerned is inscribed: 'Notulae de terris in Segheho' (ff. 7, 8). The Walter de Wahull in question is probably the baron of that name (Dugdale, Baron.

I. 504), who joined the rebellion of 1173 along with the Earl of Leicester, and was made a prisoner (Rad. de Diceto I. 377, 378; Ann.

Dunstapl. 21).

Harl. MS. 1885, f. 7.

-- Tempore conquestus terrae, Dominus de Wahull et Dominus de la Leie diviserunt inter se feudum de Walhull', widelicet, Dominus de Walhull'

habuit duas partes, et Dominus de la Lee, tertiam, scilicet, unus xx.

milites, et alius x. Volens autem Dominus de Wahull' retinere ad opus suum totum parc.u.m de Segheho, et totum dominic.u.m de Broccheburg', fecit metiri tertiam partem in bosco et in plano. Postea, fecit metiri tantumdem terrae, ad mensuram praedictae tertiae partis, in loco qui nunc vocatur Nortwde, et in bosco vicino, qui tunc vocabatur Cherlewde; et abegit omnes rusticos qui in praedicto loco juxta praedictum bosc.u.m manebant. Hiis ita gestis, mensurata est terra de Segheho, et inventae sunt viii. ydae vilenagiae. De hiis viii. ydis conputata est quarta acra ad unam summam, et inventa est quod haec summa valebat tertiam partem parci et dominici. Dedit ergo Dominus de Wahull' Domino de la Leie, scilicet, Stephano, pro tertia parte quam debuit sortiri in bosco et in dominico, culturas praedictorum rusticorum, et bosc.u.m qui nunc vocabatur Cherlewd', nunc Nortwd'. Dominus autem de la Leie dedit hanc terram Bald' militi suo, patri Roberti de Nortwd'. Et inter terram praedictorum rusticorum habuimus de dono ecclesiae unam acram. Pro hac acra Robertus pater Gileberti dedit n.o.bis [in] escambium aliam acram quae abutiat ad Fenmed', et jacet ad vest, juxta terram Nigelli de Chaltun'. De ista praedicta acra in Nortwd' quae nostra fuit, jacet roda una ad lomputtes, scilicet, roda capitalis. Alia roda jacet ad uest curiae Roberti praedicti; quae curia ipsius Roberti primo fuit ad uest, quam post obitum patris mutavit, transferendo horrea sua de uest usque hest. Tres gorae jacent pro dimidia acra, et abutiant ex una parte versus viam quae dicitur via de Nortwd', et ex alia parte versus Edmundum filium Uctred'. Procedente tempore, tempore guerrae praedictae viii. ydae et ceterae de Segheho fuerunt occupatae a multis injuste; et ob hoc recognitio fuit facta coram Waltero de Wahull', et coram Hugone de Leia, et in plena curia, per vi. senes, et per ipsum Robertum, de hac nostra acra et de omnibus aliis terris, scilicet, quae acrae ad quas hidas pertineant: et per hanc recognitionem, rest.i.tuit n.o.bis Robertus praedictam acram. Uctredus drengus mansit ad uest de via de Nortwde, et grangiae ejus fuerunt ex alia parte viae, scilicet, hest.

Tempore quo omnes tenentes de Segheho, scilicet, Milites, liberi homines, et omnes alii incerti et nescii fuerunt de terris et tenementis ville, et singuli dicebant alios injuste plus aliis possidere, omnes communi consilio, coram Dominis de Wahul' et de la Leie, tradiderunt terras suas per provisum seniorum et per mensuram pertici quasi novus conquestus dividendas, et unicuique rationabiliter a.s.signandas. Eo tempore recognovit Radulfus Fretetot quod antecessores sui et ipse injuste tenuerant placiam quandam sub castello, que placia per distributores et per perticam mensurata est, et divisa in xvj b.u.t.tos; et jacent hii b.u.t.ti ad Fulevell', et abut[tant] sursum ad croftas ville.

Hii b.u.t.ti ita part.i.ti sunt. Octo yde sunt in Segheho de vilenagio: singulis ydis a.s.signati sunt ii. b.u.t.ti. Ecclesiae vero dotata fuit de dimidia yda: ad hanc dimidiam ydam a.s.signatus fuit unus b.u.t.tus: sed postquam illum primum habuimus, bis seminatus fuit, et non amplius, quia ceteri omnes non excol[un]t ibi terram, sed ad pascua reservant: un[de]

est, quia locus remotus est, nec pratum habemus nec bladum.

He terre prenominate sunt in campo qui dicitur Hestfeld. Summa, xix acre et tres rode.

XIV.

See p. 302, n. 1.

Cotton MS. Galba E. X. f. 19.

Hec est firma unius cuiusque uille que reddit plenam firmam duarum ebdomadarum.

Duodecim quarteria farine ad panem monachorum suorumque hospitum que singula faciunt quinque treias Ramesie, et unaqueque treia appreciatur duodecim denariis precium uniuscuiusque quarterii fuit quinque sol.

Summa precii 12 quarteriorum, 60 sol. et 2 millia panum uillarum uel 4 quarteria ad usum seruientium. Precium unius mille dimidiam marcam argenti. Summa precii integra marca. Ad potum 24 missa de grut quarum singulas faciunt una treia Ramesii et una ringa. Appreciatur una missa 12 den. Summa precii de brasio 32 sol. sunt et 2 septaria mellis 32 den.

sunt summa precii 5 sol. et 4 den.

Ad compadium 4 libre in denariis et decem pense lardi. Precium unius pense 5 sol. sunt. Summa precii 5 obol. Et decem pense casei. Precium unius pense 3 solidi sunt. Summa precii 30 sol. Et decem frenscengie peroptime. Precium uniuscuiusque sunt 6 den.--Et 14 agni. Agnus pro denario--Et 120 galline, 6 pro den.--Et 2000 ovorum. Precium unius mille 2 sol. sunt.--Et 2 tine butiri. Precium unius tine 40 den.--Et 2 treie fabarum. Prec. 1 treie 8 den. sunt. Et 24 misse prebende. Precium unius misse 8 den.--Summa precii totius supradicte firme 12 libre sunt et 15 sol. et 1 den. exceptis 4 libris supradictis, que solummodo debent dari in denariis de unaquaque plena firma duarum ebdomadarum. Et postquam hec omnia reddita fuerunt, firmarius persoluet 5 solidos in denariis, uno denario minus, et sic implebuntur 17 libre plenae in dica cellerarii et unum mille de allic sine dica et firmarius dabit present cellerario ter in anno sine dica.

Villa que reddit firmam plenam unius ebdomade, dimidium omnium supradictorum reddet. Excepto quod unaqueque villa cuiuslibet firme sit, uel duarum ebdomadarum, uel unius plene firme, uel unius lente firme, dabit equaliter ad mandatum pauperum 16 denarios de acra elemosin.

Villa que reddit lente firmam unius ebdomade, omnino sicut plena firma unius ebdomade reddet. Exceptis quinque pensis lardis et 5 pensis casei quas non dat set pro eis 40 solidos in denariis et alios 40 sol. sicut plena firma.

XV.

See p. 344, n. 1.

Ayllington or Elton, Hunts, is remarkable on account of the contrast between its free and servile holdings, as described in the Hundred Rolls. It would be interesting to know whether the former are to be considered as ancient free tenements, or as the outcome of modern exemptions. The Hundred Rolls point in the first direction (ii. 656).

Some of the tenements under discussion are said to be held de conquestu, and it would be impossible to put any other interpretation on this term than that of 'original occupation.' It means the same as the 'de antiquo conquestu' of other surveys (sup. p. 453).

But when we compare the inquisition published in the Ramsey Cartulary (Rolls Ser. i. 487 sqq.) we come upon a difficulty. There the holdings are constantly arranged under the two headings of _virgatae operariae_ and _virgatae positae ad censum_, the population is divided into _operarii_ and _censuarii_, and in one case we find even the following pa.s.sage: 'item quaelibet domus, habens ostium apertum versus vic.u.m, tam de malmannis, quam de cotmannis et operariis, inveniret unum hominem ad lovebone, sine cibo domini, praeter Ricardum Pemdome, Henric.u.m Franceys, Galfridum Blundy, Henric.u.m le Monnier.' And so most of the free people are actually called _molmen_, and this would seem to imply that they were _libere tenentes_ only in consequence of commutation.

It seems to me that there is no occasion for such an inference. The _molmen_ in the pa.s.sage quoted are evidently the same as the _censuarii_ of other pa.s.sages, and although, in a general way, the expression _mal_ was probably employed of quit-rents, still it was wide enough to interchange with _gafol_, and to designate all kinds of rents, without any regard to their origin. And of course, this is even more the case with _census_. Upon the whole, I do not see sufficient reason to doubt that we have freeholders before us who held their land and paid rent ever since the original occupation of the soil.