COUNTRY PROPER
The state of things exhibited in the previous chapter is essentially
transitional. What we have there seen is the town emerging out of the
country, or, to put it another way, the country merging, through the
principle of attraction, into the focus of the town. This method of
viewing the subject is necessarily partial and incomplete. The existence
of a common in association with a town or village or group of villages
is not a self-evident proposition, to be taken for granted. It is
clearly part of a system which it now becomes our business to
investigate.
To all appearances many of the arrangements found in the course of, and
to the close of, the Middle Ages, and even (in a decaying and
disappearing form) almost to our own generation, were descended from
that well-nigh immemorial antiquity, in which our forefathers were
colonists in what was to them a new world--a world of forest and of fen,
of man-eating beasts, and alien foemen as fierce or fiercer than they.
These conditions determined the course of action of the men who lived
under them. For safety, men of one blood dwelt together in a stockaded
village or tún. They and their stock, however, had to subsist on their
labour and the bounty of the earth; and therefore around the village a
tract of cultivable land was appropriated to the use of the community.
Until some degree of security was attained it was futile to dream too
much of individual rights; the inhabitants would have been only too glad
of the co-operation of their neighbours, and whilst some worked others
no doubt stood to arms. Within this area seem to have lain fenced
fields for the shelter of calves and other young animals, but this was
probably the only exception. Beyond the arable land lay a ring of meadow
land; beyond that the stinted pasture; and beyond that again the forest
or waste.
By the term "common" is generally understood common of pasture; it is
not unusual to meet with the phrase "cow commons," as though cows were
the principal, if not the sole, objects which rendered commons of
service. This may well have been the case in later times. In early days
however, there went along with it common tillage, examples of which are
still to be found on the Continent. Traces of the open-field system
exist also in various parts of England, notably between Hitchin and
Cambridge, where there are huge turf balks dividing the fields. It is
said that within the last century the country lying between Royston and
Newmarket was entirely unenclosed, and till quite late in the century
parishes like Lexton, in Northamptonshire, retained this characteristic.
Other examples occur at Swanage in Dorset and Stogursey in West
Somerset.
BOROUGH ENGLISH
Before proceeding to describe the methods of cultivation employed, it is
desirable to glance at a custom which, there is reason to suppose, is
connected with that remote period when the English were not _de jure_
masters of the soil, but occupied the position of colonists, who either
expropriated the original inhabitants or entered upon possession of land
as _res nullius_, to which they had established no solid claim by
prescription. We have already referred to that valuable repertoire of
national customs, so judiciously edited as to merit the higher praise
_in_valuable--the Year-Books. The reports of the pleas in the Common
Bench for 1293 include the following:
"One A. brought a writ of entry against B., saying, 'Into which he had
not entry except by such an one who had tortiously, &c, disseised his
father Robert.' And he laid the descent thus: 'From Robert descended the
right, &c, to Adam the present demandant, as his youngest son and heir,
according to the custom of such a place, &c.'
"_Asseby_: 'Sir, we tell you that Adam has an elder brother named N.,
who is legitimate and is alive, and whom they have omitted. Judgment of
the omission.'
"_Sutton_: 'Sir, even if he had made a quit-claim to him, yet that could
not be a bar to us, because by the custom of the country the youngest
shall have his inheritance, wherefore there is no need to make mention
of him.'
"_Asseby_: 'Sir, he has brought a writ at common law; judgment if he
ought not to be answered at common law, and if he (the demandant) can
allege the custom.'
"_Sutton_: 'In many places in England a woman demands her dower by the
writ "Unde nihil habet," which is a writ at common law, and yet,
according to the custom of the country, she will recover for her dower a
moiety of the tenements which belonged to her husband, where by common
law she would have only the third part, and also in the case of
tenements in some countries which are holden by knight-service the lord
can avow the taking as good for cornage according to the law of the
country; and yet the writ is at common law. And also in Gavelkind
according to the custom [of Kent] the younger brother shall have as much
as the elder; and yet one brother shall recover against the other
brother by right "De rationabile parte," and by the "Nuper obiit," which
are writs at common law. So in the present case.'
"_Metingham_ [the judge]: 'Asseby, answer.'"
Now what was this custom? It is that known as "Borough English," and the
reader will have already inferred from the report of the action that,
wherever it prevailed, the youngest son claimed to succeed to his
father's estate. It is therefore the antithesis of the right of
primogeniture, whereby real estate falls to the eldest son. An old
record given to print by the late Mr. Robert Dymond, F.S.A., exhibits in
great detail the customs of the Manor of Braunton, in Devonshire, and
among them is that of Borough English, or, as it is termed in local
parlance, "cradle-land." This testimony is of peculiar interest, since
the document comprises a provision for the assignment of the property in
the not wholly improbable event of the family consisting entirely of
daughters. The section touching upon Borough English is thus formulated:
"HEIRS OF THE YOUNGEST HOLDING
"_Item_, the Custome ys in every of the sayd manors that if eny manner
of person or persons be seased of eny manner of land or tenements, rents
or premises of the yonger holdyng liying withyn eny of the seid manors
or liberties in fee symple or in fe tayle, in demeane or in usu, and
have divers sonnys by dyvers venters, viz. by dyvers wyvys, or women by
divers men, and dye, that then the yonger son of them shall inherite the
seid lands and tenements with other the premyses in fe symple as in fe
tayle that so descendith in the seid yonger holdyng in demeane or in
use, except ther be any other estate made & proved to the contrary by
wryting & if the[y] have no yssue butt all doughters that then the seid
inheritance [is] to be parted betwene theym except any lawful wryting or
state made to the contrary after the custom."
Neither of these rules of succession was in any way confined to the West
of England. Indeed, the late Mr. T. W. Shore, who appears to have been
quite an authority on the subject, affirms that "in a general way it may
be said that the further we go from Kent the less numerous become the
instances in any county of England." This statement is confirmed by a
yet greater authority. "Borough English," says Elton, "was most
prevalent in the S.E. districts, in Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, in a ring
of manors encircling ancient London, and, to a less extent, in Essex and
the East Anglian kingdom." Mr. E. A. Peacock, however, points out that
there are in Lincolnshire seven places where the custom is still
abiding--viz., Hibaldstow, Keadby, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Long Bennington,
Norton (Bishops), Thoresby and Wathall; and he further calls attention
to the fact, which is certainly most important, that the custom may be
traced over nearly all Europe with the exception of Spain and Italy, and
up to the boundaries of China and Arracan. The German name is
_jungsten-recht_; and the practice for which it stands existed, amongst
other places, at Rettenburg in Westphalia. How then did it become known
as Borough _English_? The reason is suggested by the two sorts of
tenure--Burgh Engloyes and Burgh Francoyes--which are found in different
parts of the town of Nottingham in the reign of Edward III. Borough
English was the native custom which had succeeded in holding its ground
against the effects of the Norman Conquest.
As has been said, Borough English was in vogue all around London--at
Lambeth, Vauxhall, Croydon, Streatham, Leigham Court, Shene or Richmond,
Isleworth, Sion, Ealing, Acton, and Earl's Court. In some of these
places--Fulham, Wimbledon, Battersea, Wandsworth, Barnes and
Richmond--the "yonger holding" descended not only to males but to
females; and at Lambeth (and at Kirton-in-Lindsey, in Lincolnshire)
there existed the identical arrangement which has been found at
Braunton, in Devon. This equal division between daughters Mr. Shore
regards as an "intermediate stage between Borough English and
Gavelkind." The latter is distinctively the "custom of Kent," and
signifies that the land was "partible," and inherited by the sons in
equal shares, the youngest son retaining the homestead, and making
compensation to his brethren for this addition to his share. Borough
English and gavelkind, therefore, though not the same, are near akin;
and it is an interesting question which of the two was prior to the
other. It may be that gavelkind is the older, and that Borough English
is a remnant or distortion of what appears, on the face of it, a more
equitable condition of things. On the other hand, gavelkind may have
been, so to speak, grafted on a more simple usage which the community,
through change of circumstances, had outgrown, and had ceased to possess
the same justification as at first.
Why should the youngest son take the inheritance? One explanation is
that he was presumed to be least able to provide for himself. This,
however, expresses only half the truth. The other half has, we think,
been furnished by Mr. Peacock:
"The most popular explanation in the last [eighteenth] century was the
calumny known as _mercheta mulierum_, now known as a malignant fable
popularized by novelists and playwrights. Another suggestion is that it
is a custom that has survived from some prehistoric race; a third that
it has grown up at different points...." Mr. Peacock regards the last as
the most likely. "It is only when the population becomes relatively
dense that land, apart from what it produces, is of any value. A time,
however, would soon be reached when land would have a value of its own.
The good soil would soon be taken up, and in the days of a primitive
mode of culture third-rate land would be valueless. Then the
house-father would be forced by circumstances to make provision, ere his
death, for the sons sharing the ancestral domain between them.
"Here we have the origin of gavelkind--a form of devolution more widely
spread than even ultimo-geniture or Borough English. Gavelkind, however,
could be but a temporary provision. As the population grew, so it would
be absolutely necessary that the young men of the household should make
new settlements for themselves. This fact accounts in its measure for
the vast shifting of the population that took place when the Roman
Empire was in its protracted death-agony. The torrents of human beings
which poured in on the decaying Empire were considered by the older
historians as evidence of nomadic barbarism. We, with our present
lights, say rather that they indicate a population too dense for their
own homes to support.
"It would be a matter of course that the elder sons should go forth and
carve out for themselves new homes in the West; but when the swarm
departed, all the sons would not go forth from the shelter of the native
roof-tree. One at least, commonly the youngest, would stay behind. On
him would devolve the duty of looking after the old folk and his
unmarried sisters. On him would devolve in due time the duties of the
sacrifices connected with the sacred hearth; and when the father died to
him would devolve the paternal dwelling, with its ploughland, its
meadow, and its rights of wood and water. Here is, we believe, the key
to the origin of Borough English."
THE OPEN FIELD
We now pass to the methods of cultivation observed in the open
field--the conditions of early agriculture. There is reason to believe
that at the time of the English settlement extensive tillage must have
existed, at any rate to some degree; but this was soon superseded by
intensive culture. Certain fields, that is to say, were allocated for
the raising of particular crops, the limits being marked by large balks
or banks. Beside these arable fields there was a tract of meadow land,
from which the cattle would have been excluded during the time necessary
for the growth and carrying of hay. After harvesting operations had been
completed, and all through the winter, the cattle were allowed to range
at will among the stubble of the arable fields, and over the meadow
land, as also over the waste, which was more properly their domain.
As it was impossible to raise crops year after year from the same fields
without gravely impoverishing the soil, this system was exchanged in
some places for another--that of cropping one or two fields and allowing
the other to lie fallow. This modification was not always judged
requisite to prevent the exhaustion or deterioration of the land; and
thus there arose a third--what is termed the "three-field" system, by
which out of three arable fields two were under cultivation at the same
time, one lying fallow. The third plan was that which ultimately met
with most favour. In the early autumn the field that had lain fallow
through the summer was ploughed and sown with wheat, rye, or other corn;
and in the spring the stubble of the field that had yielded the last
crop of wheat was ploughed up, and barley or oats sown in it. The third
field, in which the previous crop had been barley, retained the stubble
till the early days of June. It was then ploughed up and left in that
condition until a fresh crop was sown in the autumn. Professor
Cunningham, whose account we here follow, has furnished a convenient
chart or diagram which we venture to reproduce as an aid to the
comprehension of the subject:
I. II. III.
Wheat (or rye) Stubble of Stubble of
+------------------+--------------+--------------+
_Jan_ | sown | wheat | barley (or |
| | | oats) |
| | Sow | |
|------------------+--------------| |
_March_ | | barley | |
| | | Plough and |
| | |--------------+
_June_ | | | leave fallow |
|------------------+--------------| |
| | Reap | |
_August_ | | | |
| | | Plough and |
| | |--------------+
_October_ | | | sow wheat |
| Wheat | Barley | |
+------------------+--------------+--------------+
stubble stubble
This chart represents one year's labours. In the following year the
first field would take the place of the second, the second that of the
third, and the third that of the first. The process would be repeated in
the third year, and in this way the rotation would continue to be
maintained. There were districts in which the three-field ousted the
two-field system; and others in which neither entirely displaced the
other. Both eventually gave way to the more modern method of four-course
husbandry. The three-field style of agriculture may date back to the
remote reign of King Ine, when, it seems certain, open-field cultivation
in some form was the rule. This being the case, it was necessary that
the fields in which corn and grass were growing should be fenced off for
the time being; and one of King Ine's laws has reference to the
recognition or neglect of this neighbourly duty:
"If churls have a common meadow or other partible land[15] to fence, and
some have fenced their part, and some have not, and (cattle stray in
and) eat up their common corn or grass; let those go who own the gap and
compensate to the others who have fenced their part the damage which
there may be done, and let them demand such justice on the cattle, as it
may be right. But if there be a beast which breaks hedges, and goes in
everywhere, and he who owns it cannot restrain it, let him who finds it
in his field take it and slay it, and let the owner take its skin and
flesh, and forfeit the rest."
The picture this law presents is that of fields divided by temporary
fences, in which, if the three-field system were in use, two would be
under cultivation and the third fallow. One great field of thirty acres
would have sixty distinct strips, with a narrow margin of turf serving
in each case as the line of demarcation. To each servile holding in the
Confessor's time the landlord assigned a pair of oxen with which to work
it; and these may have been combined into a powerful team of eight or
twelve, similar to manorial teams, though plough-teams varying in
numerical strength are recorded, and the efficiency of some of them may
well be doubted.
If there were oxen, it is clear that provision must have been made for
their support; and this consisted in the hay from the meadow, in the
pasture of the common waste, and that of the fallow field and the other
fields in the interval between harvest and seed-time. The question
whether the tillers were bond or free probably made no difference to the
way in which agricultural operations were conducted.
The collapse of this system may be attributed to the scarcity of labour
brought about especially by the Black Death. When men could not be had
in sufficient number, the necessary consequences was the expansion of
pasture and the contraction of tillage; and this dual process was
assisted by the stampede of labourers to the towns and the policy of
enclosure to which landowners resorted as a remedy. Deprived of their
quit-rents, and not having resources for the payment of wages on an
adequate scale, supposing that labour was obtainable on reasonable
terms, the landholders fell back upon the only expedients that remained
to them. They had land, and they had stock; and, as an escape from
absolute ruin, they let the land to tenants who took over the stock and,
probably, as the need arose, replaced it with their own beasts. This
revolution, already in full swing in the fourteenth century, paved the
way for the present order of things, under which the tenant pays a fixed
rent for the use of land and buildings, and finds the capital for
farming.
THE WASTE
We have next to deal with the waste. The meaning of the term is
clear--it signifies land which, from the poverty of the soil or other
reasons, had never been brought under cultivation. The commons that
still survive are mostly of that description, the more valuable land
having been resumed during one of the successive periods of enclosure,
or--piecemeal.
Originally, there is little doubt, such land belonged to the family or
sept, by whom it was used as forest for game or as pasturage for cattle.
Unlike the arable field or the common meadow, it was not distributed
into sets, but enjoyed in common by all who possessed the right of
stocking it. In a genial article in the "Antiquary" describing how the
world wagged in his parish of Blewbury, Berks, in the eighteenth
century, the Rev. N. L. Whitchurch observes: "There were 'cow commons'
on the downs in those days, and a road from the village is still called
the 'cow way.' In the early morning a man would collect the various cows
of the village, which he drove to pasture for the day. The ancient bell
which he rang at the foot of the 'cow road' is still preserved in the
village."
In Saxon times the purchase of stock by an individual was a matter of
general concern to the community in which he lived. By a law of King
Edgar, if a man in the course of a journey bought cattle, he was
required on his return to turn them out into the common pasture, "with
the witness of the township." If he omitted to do so within five nights,
the townsmen were to acquaint the hundred elder, and the cattle were
forfeited, the lord receiving one-half and the hundred the other. If the
townsmen failed in their duty, their herdsman was subjected to a
flogging. For the purchase of cattle the witness of the township was not
enough. Twelve standing witnesses were appointed for every hundred, and
the buyer had to make it his business to seek out two or three of them
so as to secure their presence at the transaction.
Whatever the primitive constitution of society may have been, in
historical times three parties possessed an interest in the waste.
Blackstone defines common as "a profit which a man hath in the land of
another, as to feed his beasts, to catch fish, to dig turf, to cut
wood, and the like." In theory, the waste belonged to the King, who
vested portions of it in individual lords or religious houses, and they
thus became recognized owners of the soil. In case of outlawry or
attainder, the waste reverted to the Crown, which, according to custom,
held possession of it for a year and a day. Thirdly, the _use_ of the
soil, for various specified purposes, resided in the inhabitants of
certain townships or hundreds, was appendant to certain tenements, or
was reserved as easement on the sale of the land.
Some very interesting questions, arising out of this joint occupancy,
were raised in the courts at the close of the thirteenth
century--notably the right of search for the object of ascertaining
whether there were on the common more animals than any of the parties
was entitled to place there, and, if so, of impounding them. Was this
right appurtenant to the manor, or was it also appendant to a frank
tenement in a particular vill? In one case where the lord had depastured
an excess of beasts, the court decided against him, and in favour of a
commoner whom he accused of "tortiously" taking his cattle. But,
notwithstanding this judgment, there is some uncertainty on the point,
as appears from the report of an action tried in the Middlesex Iter of
1294.
"Robert Fitznel brought the Replegiare against Richard, the son of John,
saying that he had tortiously taken his beasts in the wood of the Abbat
of Horwede, formerly the forest of King Henry, by whom it was given as a
chace to N., ancestor of Richard."
"_Warwick_: 'Sir, we offer to aver that Robert and all those who have
held the land in N., which he holds have been seised for all time, &c,
of the common in the wood where his taking was made as appurtenant to
their frank tenement....'
"_Gosefield_ imparted, and returned and said: 'Sir, we will tell you the
truth of this matter; and we tell you that the place where the taking
was made was King Henry's forest; and Henry granted what was the forest
to our ancestor by way of chace; and that in that chace, according to
the custom of the chace, no person could put to common more beasts than
could be fed or wintered on the produce of the land which he held in the
same chace; and because Robert brought his beasts from his lands which
he held elsewhere, which beasts could not be fed or wintered on the land
which he held within the chace, contrary to the usage and custom of the
said chace, he (Richard) took them, &c....'
"_Warwick_: 'Sir, first of all they avowed the taking, and said that we
ought not to have any kind of common; and now they have admitted our
right of common partially, viz. as to beasts which can be wintered ...'
"_Gosefield_: 'The assise of forest is notorious and well-known to all,
viz., that no man can have therein more beasts to common than can be fed
off the said land.'
"_Warwick_ (he spoke then for the King): 'Richard, do you claim to have
assise of forest?'
"_Gosefield_: 'Nay, sir. But King Henry granted and gave it to us to
hold as a chace in the same manner as he held it while it was a royal
forest; and we have three swain-motes yearly for searching and inquiring
whether anyone puts more beasts therein than he ought to put; and,
inasmuch as King Henry granted it to us to hold like as he held it, it
seems to us that there is no need to take the Inquest.'
"_Hertford_ [the judge]: 'Do you accept the averment or not?'
"_Gosefield_ (being obliged to accept the averment) said: 'Sir, they
were never seised of common for more beasts than could be wintered and
fed and supported on the growth of the said land.'"
There is appended to this report a note which lays down the law in a
different sense from that before stated. It is as follows:
"It is not sufficient for anyone who avows distress to say that he
avows the taking, &c., for that he found the beasts in his chace of such
a place, or in the common of such a place, where he had no right of
common; for it may be that neither party had a right of common; and thus
it is not sufficient but he must say that he found them in his several
pasture, or must say some other thing that touches himself and gives him
a right to impound what he found. For no man can avow a distress in a
common pasture save the lord of the soil of the common pasture. For if
any of the commoners were to make avowry for beasts taken in the common
pasture it would then follow that if the Inquest were to pass against
the plaintiff, he who avowed the taking in the common pasture would have
the return of the beasts and the amends, and not the lord of the
pasture, and that would be improper. But this does not hold good where
the King is the lord of the common pasture, and several persons holding
of him in socage have common, because in that case anyone having common
may avow a good distress. The reason is because the King will not be a
party in such case or distrein anyone."
In mediæval country life, then, commons might be either manorial or
forestal. Bishop Stubbs in his "Constitutional History" affirms that
"neither the hundreds of England nor the shires appear ever to have had
common lands." As regards hundreds, on the enclosure of a common,
allotments were made to several townships of Knaresborough, and Stubbs
himself allows that "it seems a fair instance of common lands of a
hundred." Similarly, there is in the hundred of Coleness in Suffolk a
pasture common to all the inhabitants. But in each instance we have
probably to distinguish between use and ownership; and the same
distinction applies to counties, otherwise the case of the Devonshire
Commons might seem to refute the dictum.
The Devonshire Commons are not to be confused with the Forest of
Dartmoor. They constitute rather the purlieus, and, in general, afford
better pasturage than the forest itself. Neither are they identical
with the commons of the separate vills--the manorial or parochial
commons. The whole of the inhabitants of the county may be regarded as
possessing an interest in the Devonshire Commons, with the exception of
the people of Barnstaple and Totnes, the reason being that those
districts not having been afforested with the rest of the county, the
residents acquired no new privileges when Devonshire was disafforested.
The other inhabitants retained whatever rights they had previously
enjoyed not only in respect of the Devonshire Commons, but of the Forest
of Dartmoor, of which, at some early period--before the era of
perambulations, in which they were not included--those commons had no
doubt formed part. One effect of the wide extent of the right of common
was that the rule of _levant and couchant_ did not obtain here.
Naturally, when all Devonshire men were entitled to the use of the land,
it was impossible to fix a limit to the number of the beasts that might
be turned out throughout the length and breadth of the county.
Mention was made above of royal forests as occupying, in some respects,
a different position from other lands in which a right of common was
exercised. Dartmoor, although the property of the Prince of Wales as
Duke of Cornwall, may be taken as, to all intents and purposes,
answering to that description; and thus peculiar interest attaches to
the usages which prevailed, and still prevail, within its bounds.
The question of "Venville Rights on Dartmoor" is one that engaged the
attention of a very capable writer as well as an accomplished antiquary,
the late Mr. W. F. Collier; and although the subject has been handled by
other investigators, it is from him that we have derived the bulk of our
information on this very remarkable aspect of commonage. First, as to
the name. "Venville" is a provincial corruption of _fines villarum_,
each vill paying a larger or smaller sum for the right of pasturage; and
certain parishes or manors on the outskirts of the forest were said to
be "in venville." "The perambulation [of 1224]," says Mr. Birkett,
"establishes three important facts: viz., that the moor was originally
part of a royal forest; that the Commons of Devon, and surrounding
parishes were once part of the forest; and that the moor is not waste of
a manor." The townships were grouped into four bailiwicks--North, South,
East, and West; and the fines payable compose too long a list to be
given entire. The following, however, are specimens: The township of
Trulegh (Throwleigh), 2_s._ 6_d._; the parish of South Tawton, 7_s._
4 1/2_d._; the township of Sele (South Zeal), 6 1/2_d._; the hamlet of
Lowyngton, in the parish of Meavy, 2_d._; the township of Gadamewe
(Godameavy), in the same parish, 2_d._; the township of Chagford,
12_d._; the hamlet of Teigncombeham, with [within?] the parish of
Chagford, 4_s._ This was in 1506-7. In return for these payments the
commoners have certain "venville" rights, which extend over the forest
proper and the Devonshire Commons, and include the taking of stone and
sand for their own use. But the most valued is that of agistment or
pasturage, especially of ponies. The Duchy, on its part, claims and
exercises the right of "drift"--a picturesque survival on which we may
well bestow some regard.
The division of the forest into four quarters still continues, each
being in charge of a moorman; and over these wide tracts and the
adjacent Commons sheep, bullocks, and ponies are turned out by the
tenants to graze at will. In the autumn the animals are driven to a
traditional spot, in order that they may be claimed by their owners.
There is a bullock drift, and a pony drift, of which the former is the
earlier; and each quarter has its own drift days, which are usually
different. In any case, no notice is given, but about two o'clock in the
morning the moorman is apprised by a messenger that he must "drive" his
quarter for bullocks or ponies. Thereupon, according to the regular
procedure, he ascends the tors and blows his horn as an intimation to
the tenants to assist in the drift. In the western quarter there was
formerly a stone, through a hole in which it was the custom to blow the
horn, but this stone now graces a wall in a hedge.
The drift to Merrivale Bridge is accomplished by men on horseback and
men on foot, and dogs, to the accompaniment of horns and halloos; and
when all the animals have been gathered, an official of the Duchy takes
his stand on an ancient stone and reads a proclamation, which done the
owners are summoned to claim, let us say, their ponies. The venville
tenants identify their beasts, making no payment; but other persons--and
in no case, apparently, is the right of pasturage disputed, nearly the
whole of Devonshire having been forest--have to render a fine for each
animal. They have also to meet a trivial charge for night rest, which is
supposed to have arisen from an old custom that debarred anyone from
remaining on the forest by night, with the consequent temptation to
deer-poaching. An unclaimed animal is driven to Dunnebridge Pound and
there kept for some weeks, at the expiration of which, if he is still
unclaimed, or if the owner refuses to pay for poundage, etc., he is sold
for the benefit of the Duchy.
Each quarter of the moor has its peculiar earmark for ponies, consisting
of a round hole at the base or the tip on the near or off ear, through
which a piece of string is tied, there being thus four distinct marks.
Some of these ancient usages have fallen into desuetude. The last
occasion on which the horn was sounded was in 1843; and the four
quarters are now let to as many "moormen," who endeavour to make as much
profit as possible out of them. To this day, however, neither on
Dartmoor nor on the Devonshire Commons, is any man denied pasturage for
his ponies or cattle.
BONDMEN
From vills we may naturally turn to those who in ancient days--the word
has another meaning now--were named after them _villeins_. More than once
in the course of this work we have had occasion to refer to the
existence of an unfree class in England, on which prouder and more
happily circumstanced persons looked with considerable disdain, and
therefore our account would fail of a necessary element of completeness
if it omitted to deal, in some measure, with this striking phenomenon of
mediæval English life. The subject is too wide and complex to be
discussed with any approach to thoroughness, but some aspects of it may
be introduced, and indeed _must be_ introduced, being, as we have said,
complementary to statements of social relationships already set down.
The position of those who rested under the stigma of servitude is
brought home to us pretty forcibly by a report of proceedings in the
Middlesex Iter of 1294:
"One A. brought a writ of imprisonment against B.
"_Heilham_ (for B.): 'He ought not to be answered, for he is our
villein.'
"_A._: 'A free man and of free condition, ready, etc.'
"_Heilham_ said as before.
"_Metingham_ [the judge]: 'He cannot give a higher answer in a writ of
Neifty.'
"_Heilham_: 'We will tell you the truth; his father was our villein, and
held of us in villeinage land in the vill mentioned in his count, and
where he was taken; and he begot this A., and also one B., his brother,
of whom we are now seised, as of our villein; and this A. went out of
the limits of the villeinage, and afterwards returned, and we found him
at his hearth in his own nest, and we took him as our villein, as every
lord may well do; and we pray judgment.'
"_Metingham_: 'If my villein beget a child on my land which is in
villeinage, and the child so begotten go out of the limits of my land,
and six or seven or more years after return to the same land, and I
find him in his own nest and at his own hearth, I can take him and tax
him as my villein for the reason that his return brings him to the same
condition as he was when he went.'
"_Heilham_: 'He fell into the pit which he hath digged.'"
We must beware of attributing this doctrine of Neifty to the Norman
Conquest, which merely supplied names; in definiteness and cruelty
nothing could exceed the practice of serfage under the Saxons. "The
slave," says Green, "became part of the live stock of the estate, to be
willed away at death with the horse or the ass, whose pedigree was kept
as carefully as his own. His children were bondmen, like himself; even
the freeman's children by a slave-mother inherited the mother's taint.
'Mine is the calf that is born of my cow,' ran the English proverb." In
the same passage he points out that the number of the serfs was being
continually augmented from various concurrent causes--war, crime, debt,
and poverty all assisting to drive men into a condition of perpetual
bondage.[16] Degradation of freemen into serfs remained a disagreeable
possibility as long as the system endured.
The agricultural population actually consisted of three elements. First
there was the lord; secondly, his free tenants; and thirdly, the
villeins or serfs. The main difference between the two latter classes
was that the free tenants had proprietary rights in their holdings and
chattels. They could buy, sell, or exchange without the lord's
intervention; and, in the event of a dispute, they could sue him or
anyone in the courts. Nevertheless, they stood in some degree of
subjection to the lord, since the geld due to the State was paid through
the lord as responsible to the sheriff for all who held land within the
manor.
Another very important distinction between the free tenants and the
villeins was the payment of _merchet_ on the marriage of daughters,
which signified that the offspring of such marriages would be the lawful
property of the lord. From this payment, and all that it implied, the
free tenants were exempt.
Predial services, on the other hand, might be rendered as well by free
tenants as by villeins. This is shown by an entry in Domesday:
"De hac terra [Longedune] tempore Regis Edwardi tenebant ix liberi
homines xviii hidas et secabant uno die in pratis domini sui et
faciebant servitium sicut eis precipiebatur."
Much would depend on the capital possessed by the free tenant, who might
elect to make good any deficiency by corporal labour. The villein had no
capital, and was simply an instrument, like the cattle of which he had
charge, in the working of the estate. He was bound to the soil with
which all his interests were linked; and he was regarded in the light of
an investment, in which the lord had a perpetual stake. It was the lord
who furnished him with the means of gaining a livelihood, and, in return
for this accommodation, the lord demanded from him, and his children
after him, lifelong service.
From the "Rectitudines Singularum Personarum," an eleventh-century
document, we learn that the _cotsetle_, for his holding of about five
acres, was required to labour for his lord on one day a week all through
the year,[17] and this was known as _week-work_. He had also to give
what was called _boon-work_--namely, three days a week in harvest.
Another type of unfree tenant was the _gebur_, who held a yardland of
some thirty or forty acres, which, upon his entrance, was stocked with
two oxen, one cow, six sheep, tools and household utensils. His
week-work amounted to two or three days a week, as the season required;
in winter, he had "to lie at his lord's fold," when bidden; and he had
to contribute his quota of boon-work. Certain payments also had to be
made.
The first attempt to regulate wages was made in the statute of 12
Richard II., cc. 3-7, the preamble of which affirms that "the servants
and labourers will not, nor by a long season would, serve and labour
without outrageous and excessive hire, and much more hath been given to
such servants and labourers than in any time past, so that for scarcity
of the said servants and labourers the husbands and land tenants may not
pay their rents nor unnethes live upon their lands, to the great damage
and loss as well of their lords as of all the commons; also the hires of
the said servants in husbandry have not been put in certainty before
this time."
The "hires" were now defined, and this act penalized masters who paid
labourers at a higher rate than was allowed under it. The scale of wages
varied in different reigns. Here we may confine ourselves to the
provisions of the statute of 11 Henry VII., which not only determined
the maximum payments, but sanctioned reductions on legitimate grounds.
Thus regard was had to the current wages in the locality, which the
employer was under no obligation to exceed. Less was to be paid at
holiday than at other times; and if a man were lazy in the morning or
lingered over his meals, he might be mulcted at his master's discretion.
Premising that the purchasing power of a penny in the fifteenth century
was about twelve times as much as it is now, we are able to form some
idea of the economic position of the different classes which were the
subjects of this legislation. The bailiff, it appears, might have a
salary of 26_s._ 8_d._; the common servant in husbandry cost 16_s._
8_d._ and 4_s._ for clothes; and the artisan received per day 5_d._ in
the summer and 6_d._ in the winter. This brings us to the hours of
labour, which depended on the season, and were also regulated by
statute. These were from 5 a.m. till between 7 and 8 p.m. from the
middle of March to the middle of September, half an hour being allowed
for breakfast, and an hour and a half for dinner and a siesta--an
indulgence countenanced from May to August. During the winter, the rule
was that work was to be carried on whilst there was daylight.
Mention has been made of holidays. These, though inevitable, were
evidently regarded as seasons of danger, since the favourite recreations
of labourers, if left to their own devices, were poaching and politics.
Against these twin evils the King's counsellors took precautions in an
act (13 Rich. II., st. I., c. 13), of which the preamble ran:
"Forasmuch as divers artificers, labourers, servants, and grooms,
keep greyhounds and other dogs, and on the holy days, when
Christian people be at church hearing Divine service, they go
a-hunting in parks, warrens, and coningries of lords and others to
the very great destruction of the same, and sometimes under such
colour they make their assemblies, conferences, and conspiracies
for to rise and disobey their allegiance, &c."
Hence none but laymen with 40_s._ and clerks with £10 were suffered to
keep dogs or use ferrets, nets, harepipes, cords, or other engines to
destroy deer. Instead of engaging in such perilous diversions, servants
and labourers were ordered to "have bows and arrows and to use the same
on Sundays and holy days, and leave all playing at tennis or football
and other games called quoits, dice, casting of the stone, kailes
(skittles) and other importune games." Swords and daggers were
prohibited "but in time of war for the defence of the realm of
England"--a wise measure when the country was infested with vagrants and
there were so many liveried retainers prompt to resent a real or
imaginary affront.
DOMESTIC