The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)Seebohm, Frederic
History
The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)
Seebohm, Frederic
Village communities -- Great Britain
[106] The question of the _personal status_ of the villein tenant
is a different one from that of villein _tenure_. Sir H. S. Maine
(_Early Law and Custom_, p. 333) and Mr. F. Pollock (in his _Notes
on Early English Land Law_, 'Law Mag. and Review' for May 1882) have
pointed out that, according to Bracton, free men might be subject to
villein tenure and its incidents (except the _merchetum_ on marriage
of a daughter) and yet personally be free, as contrasted with the
nativi' or villeins by blood. Compare Bracton f. 4 b with f. 26 a
and 208 b. The question of the origin of the confusion of status in
serfdom will be referred to hereafter.
[p082]
CHAPTER III.
_THE DOMESDAY SURVEY_ (A.D. 1086).
I. THERE WERE MANORS EVERYWHERE.
«The manor.»
In the Domesday Survey, as might be expected from the evidence of
the foregoing chapter, the unit of inquiry is everywhere the manor,
and the manor was a landowner's estate, with a township or village
community in villenage upon it, under the jurisdiction of the lord of
the manor.
But the same person was often the lord of many manors.
«Manors of the king,»
1,422 manors were in the ancient demesne of the Crown at the date of
the Survey,[107] and most of them had also been Crown manors in the
time of Edward the Confessor. Thus, for centuries after the Conquest,
the Domesday book was constantly appealed to as evidence that this
manor or that was of 'ancient demesne,' _i.e._ that it was a royal
manor in the time of Edward the Confessor; because the tenants of
these manors claimed certain privileges and immunities which other
tenants did not enjoy. [p083]
«of the monastic houses,»
The monasteries also at the time of Edward the Confessor were holders
of many manors, often in various counties, and the Survey shows that
they were generally permitted to retain them after the Conquest.
«and of thanes.»
Earls and powerful thanes were also at the time of Edward the
Confessor possessors of many manors, and so were their Norman
successors at the date of the Survey. The resident lord of a manor
was often the mesne tenant of one of these greater lords. However
this might be, every manor had its lord, resident, or represented by
a steward or reeve (_villicus_).
«Divided manors.»
Sometimes the Survey shows that a village or township, once probably
under a single lord, had become divided between two or more manors;
and sometimes again, by what was called subinfeudation, lesser and
dependent manors, as in the Hitchin example, had been carved out of
the original manor, once embracing directly the whole village or
township.
But these variations do not interfere with the general fact that
there were manors everywhere, and that the typical manor was a
manorial lord's estate, with a village or township upon it, under his
jurisdiction, and in villenage.
Further, this was clearly the case both after the Conquest at the
date of the Survey, and also before the Conquest in the time of
Edward the Confessor.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account