FOLCLAND. BÓCLAND. LǼNLAND.
It was a wise insight into the accidents of increasing population which
limited the amount of the original éðel, or allodial estate. By leaving,
as it were, a large fund to be drawn upon, as occasion might serve, the
principle, that every freeman must be settled on land, was maintained,
without condemning society to a stationary condition, as to numbers. The
land thus left, of which the usufruct, under certain conditions, was
enjoyed by the freemen, was called Folcland, _terra publica, ager
publicus_. It was distinguished from the éðel by not becoming absolute
property in the hands of individuals, consequently by not being
hereditary. The _dominium utile_ might be granted; the _dominium
directum_ remained in the state, which was a perpetual feoffee for
certain trusts and uses. And hence folcland was subject to rents of
divers kinds, and reversion. The folcland could also be applied to
reward great public services, in which case estates of alod, or éðel,
were carved out of it, and presented to him whom the community desired
to honour[523]. The service which Wulf and Eofer did by slaying
Ongenðeów was rewarded with a grant of land and rings[524]. The clearest
view of the nature and object of folcland is given us by Beda, who
complains that it is diverted from its proper purpose,—which is, to be
granted as a support to those whose arms would defend the country,—under
pretence of erecting monasteries, which are a disgrace to their
profession. The following are his extremely important words:
-----
Footnote 523:
The τέμενος, or cut-off portion, _entail_, which service might earn
among the Greeks, is of the same character. According to tradition,
Pittacus was thus rewarded by the people of Mitylene, after overcoming
Phrynon, the Athenian champion, in single combat: τῶν δὲ Μιτυληναίων
δωρεὰς αὐτῷ μεγάλας διδόντων, ἀκοντίσας τὸ δόρυ, τοῦτο μόνον τὸ χωρίον
ἠξιώσεν, ὅσον ἐπέσχεν ἡ αἰχμή· καὶ καλεῖται νῦν Πιττάκιον. Plut. de
Malign. Herod. c. xv. The reward allotted to Horatius in the Roman
Ager ought now to be familiar to every one:
“They gave him of the corn-land
That was of public right,
As much as two strong oxen
Could plough from morn till night!”
Footnote 524:
“Geald ðone gúðræs
Geáta dryhten ...
ofer máðmum sealde
heora gehwæðrum
hund þusenda
landes and locenra beága.”
Beów. l. 5977.
-----
“And since there are both very numerous and very extensive tracts,
which, to adopt the common saying, are of use neither to God nor
man,—seeing indeed that in them there is neither maintained a regular
life according to God’s law, nor are they possessed by the soldiers or
comites of secular persons, who might defend our race from the
barbarians,—if any one, to meet the want of our time, should establish
an episcopal see in those places, he will be proved not to incur the
guilt of prevarication, but rather to perform an act of virtue[525].”
-----
Footnote 525:
Bed. Epist. ad Ecgbirhtum Archiepiscopum, § 11. (Opera Min. ii. 216.)
-----
And again, he continues:
“By which example it behoves also your Holiness, in conjunction with our
religious king, to abrogate the irreligious deeds and writings of our
predecessors, and to provide for the general advantage of our kingdom,
either in reference to God, or to the world: lest in our days, either
through the cessation of religion, the love and fear of an inspector at
home should be abandoned; or, on the other hand, the supply of our
secular militia decreasing, we should not have those who might defend
our boundaries from the incursions of barbarians. For, what is
disgraceful to say, persons who have not the least claim to the monastic
character, as you yourself best know, have got so many of these spots
into their power, under the name of monasteries, that there is really
now no place at all where the sons of nobles or veteran soldiers can
receive a grant[526]. And thus, idle and unmarried, being grown up to
manhood, they live on in no profession of chastity; and on this account,
they either cross the sea and desert the country which they ought to
serve with their arms; or, what is even more criminal and shameless,
having no profession of chastity, they give themselves up to luxury and
fornication, and abstain not even from the virgins consecrated to
God[527].”
-----
Footnote 526:
We know that these grants were regulated by the rank and condition of
the grantee. Beda, speaking of Benedict Biscop, a young Northumbrian
nobleman, says, “Cum esset minister Oswii regis, et possessionem
terrae suo gradui competentem, illo donante perciperet,” etc. Vit.
Sci. Bened. § 1. (Op. Min. ii. 140.)
Footnote 527:
Epist. § 11. (Op. Min. ii. 217, 218.)
-----
The evils of a course which, by preventing the possibility of marriage,
tends to the general neglect of morality, are as obvious in this state
of society, as in those where the indefinite partition of estates
reduces all the members of the higher classes to a state of poverty,—a
fact perfectly familiar in countries where the resources of trade are
not permitted to mitigate the mischief of subdivision.
The folcland then in England was the national stock. It is probable that
the same thing occurred in other Teutonic states, and that the folcland
there also formed a reserve from which endowments of individuals,
homeborn or foreign, and of religious houses, were made. Thus, “Princeps
de eius recuperatione simul et postulatione multum gavisus, et suum ad
hoc consensum et parentum adeptus est favorem; deditque illi in eisdem
partibus, multas possessiones _de publico_, quatinus viciniori potentia
soceris acceptior factus, non minori apud illos, quam in genitali solo
praecelleret dignitate[528].”
-----
Footnote 528:
Vit. S. Idae, Pertz, ii. 571.
-----
We cannot now tell the exact terms upon which the usufruct of the
folcland was permitted to individual holders. Much of it was probably
distributed in severalty, to be enjoyed by the grantee during his life,
and then to revert to the donor the State. As the holders of such lands
were most probably not included in the Marks, like the owners of
allodial property, they may have formed the proper basis of the original
gyldscipas, and have been more immediately subject to the jurisdiction
of the scírgemót; for it is impossible to believe that their condition
was one of such perfect freedom as that of the original allodial owners.
A portion also of the folcland may long have subsisted as common land,
subject to the general rights of all[529]. In this respect it must have
resembled the public land of the Romans. Only that, the true Roman
burghers or Patricians, being comparatively few, while the other
claimants were many, and self-defence therefore commanded the utmost
caution in admitting them to isotely,—the struggles between the
Patrician and Plebeian orders necessarily assumed in Rome a character of
exasperation and hostility which was wanting in England. But it does not
appear that in this country, the tribes of the Gewissas could have made
any claim to the folcland of the Mercians, or that those of the Welsh
would have found favour with any Saxon community.
-----
Footnote 529:
This seems the readiest way of accounting for the right of common
enjoyed by the king, ealdorman and geréfa, in nearly every part of
England; which right they could alienate to others. For the king’s
common of pasture, etc. see Cod. Dipl. Nos. 86, 119, 276, 288, etc.
-----
In whatever form the usufruct may have been granted, it was accompanied
by various settled burthens. In the first place were the inevitable
charges from which no land was ever relieved; namely military service,
alluded to by Beda, and no doubt in early times performed in person: the
repair of roads, bridges and fortifications. But besides these, there
were dues payable to the king, and the geréfa; watch and ward on various
occasions; aid in the royal hunting; convoy of messengers going and
coming on the public service, from one royal vill to another; harbouring
of the king, his messengers and huntsmen; lastly provision for his
hawks, hounds and horses. In addition to these, there were heavy
payments in kind, which were to be delivered at the royal vills, to each
of which, various districts were apparently made appurtenant, for this
purpose; and on which stores, so duly delivered, the king and his
household in some degree depended for subsistence. These were comprised
under the name Cyninges-feorm, or _Firma regis_.
It is from the occasional exemptions granted by the authority of the
king and his witan, that we learn what burthens the folcland was subject
to: it may therefore be advantageous to cite a few examples, which will
make the details clear.
Between 791 and 796, eighty hides of land at Westbury and Hanbury were
relieved by Offa from the dues to kings, dukes and their subordinates;
except these payments, that is to say, the _gafol_ at Westbury (sixty
hides), two tuns full of bright ale, and a comb full of smooth ale, and
a comb full of Welsh ale, and seven oxen, and six wethers, and forty
cheeses, and six langðero (?), and thirty ambers of rough corn, and four
ambers of meal, to the royal vill[530].
-----
Footnote 530:
Cod. Dipl. No. 166. Here, by the way, the comb is used as a liquid
measure; very probably of thirty-two gallons, the amount of the old
barrel of ale, (the present barrel is thirty-six gallons). So to this
day the hogshead is sixty-four gallons or twice thirty-two, the comb;
as the quarter is sixty-four gallons, or two combs of dry measure.
Even now in some parts of Surrey and Sussex, the peasants use peck for
two gallons of liquid measure: I have heard them speak of a peck, and
even half a bushel, of gin, brandy, beer, etc.
-----
In 863, an estate at Marsham was to pay by the year, twenty staters of
cheese, forty lambs, forty fleeces, and two days’ _pastus_[531] or
feorm, which last might be commuted for thirty silver shillings
(_argentea_)[532].
-----
Footnote 531:
The _pastus regis_ is the _gite du roi_ well known in French history.
Footnote 532:
Cod. Dipl. No. 288, see also No. 281.
-----
In 877, Bishop Tunberht, with the consent of his chapter, appropriated
lands at Nursling to the use of the refectory. His charter says he
grants it, “liberam ab omnibus terrenis difficultatibus omnium
gravitudinum, sive a pastu regis, principis, exactoris; et ab omni
aedificiorum opere, tributo, a paraveredis, a taxationibus quod dicimus
wíterǽdene; omnium rerum saecularium perpetualiter libera sit, excepta
expeditione et pontis aedificatione[533].” As he could not do this by
his own authority, he probably only means to record that they had been
so freed by the Witena-gemót.
-----
Footnote 533:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1063.
-----
In 883, twenty years later, a monastery is freed from all which the
monks were still bound to pay to the king’s hand, as cyningfeorm, both
in bright ale, beer, honey, oxen, swine and sheep, in short from all the
_gafol_, much or little, known or unknown, that belongs to the lord of
the nation[534].
-----
Footnote 534:
Ibid. No. 313.
-----
The dues from the monastery at Taunton were as follows: a feorm of one
night for the king, and eight dogs and one dog-keeper; and nine nights’
keep for the king’s falconers; and carriage with waggons and horses for
whatever he would have taken to Curry or Wilton. And if strangers came
from other parts, they were to have guidance to the nearest royal vill
upon their road[535].
-----
Footnote 535:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1084, an. 904.
-----
The payments reserved upon twenty hides at Titchbourn, which Eádweard in
901-909 granted to Denewulf of Winchester for three lives, were probably
the old royal gafol: they were now transferred to the church as
_double-commons_ for founder’s day. They amounted to, twelve sexters of
beer, twelve of sweetened Welsh ale, twenty ambers of bright ale, two
hundred large and one hundred small loaves, two oxen fresh or salted,
six wethers, four swine, four flitches, and twenty cheeses; but if the
day of payment should fall in Lent, an equivalent of fish might be paid
instead of flesh[536].
-----
Footnote 536:
Ibid. No. 1088.
-----
“Insuper etiam, hanc praedictam terram liberabo ab omni servitute
saecularium rerum, a pastu regis, episcopi, praefectorum, exactorum,
ducum, canum, vel equorum seu accipitrum; ab refectione et habitu
illorum omnium qui dicuntur Fæstingmen,” etc.[537]
-----
Footnote 537:
Ibid. No. 216, an. 822.
-----
“Sint liberati a pastu principum, et a difficultate illa quod nos
Saxonice dicimus Festingmen; nec homines illuc mittant qui accipitros
vel falcones portant, aut canes aut caballos ducunt; sed sint liberati
perpetualiter in ævum[538].”
-----
Footnote 538:
Ibid. No. 257, an. 844.
-----
“Ab opere regali et pastu regis et principis, vel iuniorum eorum; ab
hospitorum refectione vel venatorum; etiam equorum regis, falconum et
ancipitrum, et puerorum qui ducunt canes[539].”
-----
Footnote 539:
Cod. Dipl. No. 258, an. 845.
-----
“Ut sit liberatum et absolutum illud monasterium ab illis causis quas
Cumfeorme et Eafor vocitemus; tum a pastu accipitrorum meorum, quam
etiam venatorum omnium, vel a pastu equorum meorum omnium, sive
ministrorum eorum. Quid plura, ab omni illa incommoditate Æfres et
Cumfeorme, nisi istis causis quas hic nominamus: praecones si trans mare
venirent ad regem venturi, vel nuncii de gente Occidentalium Saxonum vel
de gente Northanhymbrorum, si venirent ad horam tertiam diei vel ad
medium diem, dabitur illis prandium; si venirent super nonam horam, tunc
dabitur eis noctis pastum, et iterum de mane pergent in viam suam[540].”
-----
Footnote 540:
Ibid. No. 261, an. 848.
-----
“Et illam terram iii manentium in Beonetlege, in occidentale plaga
Saebrine etiam liberabo a pascua porcorum re[g]is, quod nominamus
Fearnleswe[541].”
-----
Footnote 541:
Ibid. No. 277, an. 855.
-----
“Liberabo illud a pastu et ab refectione omnium ancipitrum et falconum
in terra Mercensium, et omnium venatorum regis vel principis, nisi
ipsorum tantum qui in provincia Hwicciorum sunt; etiam similiter et a
pastu et refectione illorum hominum quos Saxonice nominamus Wælhfæreld,
⁊ heora fæsting, ⁊ ealra Angelcynnes monna, ⁊ ælþeódigra rǽdefæstinge,
tam nobilium quam ignobilium[542].”
-----
Footnote 542:
Ibid. No. 278, an. 855.
-----
In 875, Ceólwulf, the intrusive king of Mercia, freed all the bishopric
of Worcester, “tota parochia Hwicciorum,”—in other words all the
churches belonging to it,—from the “pastus equorum regis,” and their
keepers[543].
-----
Footnote 543:
Cod. Dipl. No. 306, an. 875.
Many of the instances we meet with, both in England and upon the
Continent, are those of churches or monasteries: this is natural,
inasmuch as the clergy were most likely to obtain and record these
exemptions. But how, it may be asked, did it happen that such exemptions
were necessary? It seems to me that, when Christianity was introduced,
and folcland was granted for the erection or the endowment of a church,
the burthens were not always discharged; and that the piety of later
times was occasionally appealed to, to remedy the carelessness or alter
the policy of early founders.
Folcland may be considered the original and general name of all estates
save the hlot, _sors_ or alód of the first markmen: the whole country
was divided into Folclands, containing one or more hides, subject to
folcriht or the public law,—and hence having no privilege or immunity of
any sort; in many instances where Beda uses _terra unius tributarii_,
_terra familiae unius_, and similar expressions, he can only mean to
denote separate and distinct portions of folcland, and the words of
Ælfred’s translation imply the same thing.
The power of disposal over this land lay in the nation itself, or the
state; that is, in the king and his witan; but in what way, or by what
ceremonies, it was conferred, we no longer know. Still there is great
probability that it was done by some of those well-known symbols, which
survived both at home and abroad in the familiar forms of livery of
seisin,—by the straw, the rod or yard, the _cespes viridis_ and the
like[544]. We may however distinctly assert that it was not given by
book or charter, inasmuch as this form was reserved to pass estates
under very different circumstances.
-----
Footnote 544:
Perhaps in a case of this sort, even Ingulf may be trusted: he tells
us, with some reference however to the Norman forms of livery, with
which he was familiar, “Conferebantur etiam primo multa praedia nudo
verbo, absque scripto vel charta, tantum cum domini gladio, vel galea,
vel cornu, vel cratera; et plurima tenementa cum calcari, cum
strigili, cum arcu, et nonnulla cum sagitta.” Hist. Croyl. p. 70.
-----
The very fact that folcland was not the object of a charter causes our
information respecting it to be meagre: it is merely incidentally and
fortuitously that it is mentioned in those documents from which we
derive so much valuable insight into the antiquities of Saxon England.
But even from them we may infer that it was not hereditary.
Towards the end of the ninth century, Ælfred, who appears to have been
ealdorman or duke of Surrey, devised his lands by will. He left almost
all his property to his daughter; and to his son Æðelwald (perhaps an
illegitimate child,) he gave only three hides of hereditary land,
bócland, expressing however his hope that the king would permit his son
to hold the folcland he himself had held. But as this was uncertain, in
order to meet the case of a disappointment, he directed that if the king
refused this, his daughter should choose which she would give her
brother, of two hereditary estates which he had devised to her[545].
-----
Footnote 545:
Cod. Dipl. No. 317.
-----
Again, shortly before the Conquest, we find Abbot Wulfwold thus
informing Gisa bishop of Wells, Ægelnoð the abbot, Tofig the sheriff,
and all the thanes in Somerset[546]:
“Eádweard the king, my lord, gave me the land at Corfestige which my
father held, and the four farms at Æscwíc, and the fields of meadow-land
thereunto belonging, and in wood and field so much that I had pasture
for my cattle and the cattle of my men; and all as free in every respect
as the king’s own demesne, to give or sell, during my day or after my
day, to whomsoever it best pleases me.”
-----
Footnote 546:
Members of the scírgemót or county-court: hence the instrument is of a
solemn and legal description. Cod. Dipl. No. 821.
-----
In both these cases it is clear that the land was holden as a benefice;
that the tenant had only a life interest, which Wulfwold however
succeeded in converting into a _fee_.
As the State were the grantors, so also there appears to have been no
restriction as to the persons of the grantees. Of course this does not
include serfs, or others below the degree of freemen; although an
emancipated serf may sometimes have been provided with an estate of
folcland, by general donation. But there is no reason to doubt that
every other class might obtain grants of folcland. Those of a duke and
of various bishops have been mentioned; Wulfwold’s father was probably,
at least a thane. But even the king himself could and did hold land of
this description. The boundary of an estate is said to run to the king’s
folcland; “ab occidente Cyninges folcland quod habet Wighelm et
Wulfláf[547].”
-----
Footnote 547:
Cod. Dipl. No. 281.
-----
At a very early period however it became a practice to carve hereditary
estates out of the folcland, which thus became the private property of
the individual, and could by him be given, sold, or devised at his
pleasure; by which the reversion to the state was defeated, and the
common stock insofar diminished. It was also usual to release such land
from all the dues which had previously been rendered from it, and to
make it absolutely free[548], with the exception of the three services
which were inevitably incident to all landed possession, and which are
consequently known by the names of _Communis labor_, _Generalis
incommoditas_, _Onus inevitabile_, _Trinoda necessitas_, and similar
expressions. These estates were always granted by book or charter, and
hence bore the name of bócland: and it is questionable whether the two
descriptions did not, at a very early period, comprise all the land in
England, as the families of the first allodial possessors died out, and
their possessions either reverted to the state, or became alienated
under circumstances which included them in the category of bócland.
-----
Footnote 548:
Hence a free hide, _hida libera_, is properly called “án hiwisc
ægefæles landes,” a hide of land that pays no gafol or tax. Cod. Dipl.
No. 1070.
-----
We learn that the pretext upon which these conversions of folcland into
bócland were made at first, was the erection and endowment of a
religious house upon the land, by the grantee; and we also learn that
sometimes the conversion was made, the thane presented with the estate,
but the church or monastery not constructed. Soon after the introduction
of Christianity into Northumberland, it appears indeed to have been
customary to grant much greater privileges and immunities to
church-lands than were found advisable at a later period, or than seem
to have been permitted in the provinces south of the Humber. It stands
to reason that there could be no reversion in lands granted to a
corporation: hence folcland which had been presented to a church assumed
what may be called a hereditary character[549], and could only lapse by
total destruction of the particular body,—a circumstance which could
obviously never be contemplated, but which did actually occur during the
civil wars, internal dissensions and foreign invasions, which gradually
changed the face of the whole country[550]. But the lands which the
Northumbrian princes devoted to pious purposes, were most likely
relieved from all burthens whatsoever: we have conclusive evidence that
even military service was excused in that district before the time of
Beda. In all probability, it was not suspected how much the defences of
the country might become impaired by grants of the kind. The passages
already cited from Beda’s epistle to Ecgberht may be adduced in
corroboration of these assertions, but we have more direct evidence in
his history[551]. Oswiú on his conversion placed his daughter Eánflǽd in
the convent presided over by Hild, and with her he gave twelve estates,
“possessiunculae terrarum,” most likely folcland, each estate comprising
ten hides; in which, Beda continues, “Ablato studio militiae terrestris,
ad exercendam militiam coelestem locus facultasque suppeteret,”—or as
the Saxon translator expresses it, “Those twelve bóclands he freed from
earthly warfare and earthly service, to be employed in heavenly
warfare.” It is very clear that the duties of military service were
removed in this case, and that religious warfare was to be the
destination of those that held the lands. Similarly when Benedict Biscop
decided upon devoting himself to a monastic life, he surrendered his
lands to the king[552]. These must obviously have been folcland, the
retaining of which he considered impossible, under the circumstances;
and which, not being his own, he could not take with him into a
monastery: “despexit militiam cum corruptibili donativo terrestrem, ut
vero regi militaret;” and these words of Beda clearly show how we are to
understand what he says of Oswiú's grant to Whitby.
-----
Footnote 549:
Land is sometimes called Bishop-land, which I imagine to be the legal
designation of this particular estate.
Footnote 550:
This was the case with Peterborough, Ely and other ancient foundations
restored in the time of Eádgar. He himself says of Ely: “Nú wæs se
hálga stede yfele forlæten mid læssan þæówdóme ðonne ús gelícode nú on
úrum tíman, and eác wæs gehwyrfed ðám cyninge tó handa, ic cweðe be me
silfum.” Cod. Dip. No. 563.
Footnote 551:
Hist. Eccl. iii. 24.
Footnote 552:
Bed. Vit. Sci. Bened. § 1. (Op. Minor, ii. 140.)
-----
The gaining of a hereditary character for lands, and especially the
relief from heavy dues, were advantages which might speedily arouse the
avarice and stimulate the invention even of barbarians. Accordingly
those who could gain access to the ear of the king and his witan,
bought, or begged or extorted grants of privileged land, which they
either converted entirely into private estates, or upon which they
erected monasteries, nominally such: and over these, which they filled
with irregular and often profligate monks, they assumed the jurisdiction
of abbots; with such little advantage to the service of religion, that
we have seen Beda describe them as a public scandal, and recommend even
the desperate remedy of cancelling, by royal and episcopal authority,
the _privilegia_ or charters on which their immunities reposed.
To the growing prevalence of this fraud we probably owe it that, at
least in Wessex, the custom arose of confiscating land on which the
conditions of the grant had not been fulfilled. Thus Ini called in the
lands which Cissa had granted to Hean the abbot and Cille the abbess,
his sister, because no religious buildings had been erected thereon:
“Sed Ini rex eandem terram, postea dum regno potiretur, _diripiens ac
reipublicae restituit_, nondum constructo monasterio in ea, nec ullo
admodum oratorio erecto[553];” that is, as I understand it, folcland
they had been, and folcland they again became. But even this did not
meet all the exigencies of the case, and it therefore probably became
necessary, even in bócland granted to the church, to reserve the
military and other services, which the clergy could cause to be
performed by their own dependent cultivators or tenants, even if they
were not compelled to serve themselves,—a point which is by no means
clear[554].
-----
Footnote 553:
Cod. Dipl. No. 46.
Footnote 554:
“Quam videlicet terram Alhmundus abbas, expeditionem subterfugiens,
mihi reconciliationis gratia dabat.” Cod. Dipl. No. 161.
-----
A majority of the documents contained in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi
Saxonici are conversions of folcland into bócland, or confirmations of
such conversions. They almost universally contain a clause declaring or
_proclaiming_—such is the technical word for this important public act,
by which prince and king, ealdorman and sheriff, were at once made
strangers to the land—the estate free from every burthen save the
inevitable three; a clause giving the fullest hereditary possession, and
the power to dispose of it by will at the testator’s pleasure; and
finally a clause stating that this is done by the authority of the king,
with the advice, consent and license of his Witan or counsellors. They
remain therefore to the last important public acts, and are, I believe
universally, to be considered acts of the assembled Witena-gemót or
great council of the nation[555]. And as by their authority folcland
could be converted into bócland, so it appears could the reverse take
place; and a change in the nature of two estates is recorded[556], where
the king gave five ploughlands of folcland for five of bócland, and then
made the folcland bócland, the bócland folcland.
-----
Footnote 555:
See hereafter the chapter which treats of the Witan and their powers.
Book ii. ch. 6.
Footnote 556:
Cod. Dipl. No. 281.
-----
In this general spoliation it is to be supposed that the kings would not
omit to share: accordingly we find them causing estates to be booked to
them by their witan; which estates, when thus become their private and
heritable property, they devise and deal with at their pleasure: and
indeed, as the king’s consent was necessary to all such conversions, he
was much better able to obtain that of his witan in his own case, than
bishops, thanes or others were in their cases: these generally found
themselves compelled to pay handsomely for the favour they required.
With respect to ecclesiastical lands, we frequently find a loss of very
large estates submitted to, in order to secure freedom to what remained.
There are also a few instances in which lands having descended,
encumbered with payments, the owners engage some powerful noble or
ecclesiastic to obtain their freedom,—that is, to persuade the witan
into abolishing the charges. The gratuity offered to the member whose
influence was to carry these ancient private acts of parliament, is
often very considerable. Towards the closing period of the Anglosaxon
polity, I should imagine that nearly every acre of land in England had
become bócland; and that as, in consequence of this, there was no more
room for the expansion of a free population, the condition of the
freemen became depressed, while the estates of the lords increased in
number and extent. In this way the ceorlas or free cultivators gradually
vanished, yielding to the ever growing force of the noble class,
accepting a dependent position upon their bócland, and standing to right
in their courts, instead of their own old county gemótas; while the
lords themselves ran riot, dealt with their once free neighbours at
their own discretion, and filled the land with civil dissensions which
not even the terrors of a foreign invasion could still. Nothing can be
more clear than that the universal breaking up of society in the time of
Æðelred had its source in the ruin of the old free organization of the
country. The successes of Swegen and Cnut, and even of William the
Norman, had much deeper causes than the mere gain or loss of one or more
battles. A nation never falls till “the citadel of its moral being” has
been betrayed and become untenable. Northern invasions will not account
for the state of brigandage which Æðelred and his Witan deplore in so
many of their laws. The ruin of the free cultivators and the overgrowth
of the lords are much more likely causes. At the same time it is even
conceivable that, but for the invasions of the ninth and tenth
centuries, the result which I have described might have come upon us
more suddenly. The sword and the torch, plague, pestilence and famine
are very effectual checks to the growth of population, and sufficient
for a long time to adjust the balance between the land and those it has
to feed.
An estate of bócland might be subject to conditions. It was perhaps not
always easy to obtain from the Witan all that avarice desired:
accordingly we sometimes find limitations in grants, to a certain number
of lives with remainders and reversions. And it was both law and custom
not only that the first acquirer might impose what conditions he pleased
upon the descent of the estate, but that to all time his expressed will
in that respect should bind those who derived their title from him[557].
Ælfred requires his Witan, who are the guarantees and administrators of
his will, to see that he has not violated the disposition of his
ancestors by leaving lands to women which had been entailed on the male
line, and _vice versâ_[558]; and we have cases of grants solemnly
avoided for like want of conformity. More questionable in point of
principle is the right attempted to be set up by some of these
purchasers, to bar escheat and forfeiture of the land upon felony of
their heirs or devisees.
-----
Footnote 557:
Leg. Ælfr. § 41.
Footnote 558:
Cod. Dipl. No. 314.
-----
It is to be presumed that a tenant of folcland was permitted to let the
same,—upon condition no doubt that he conveyed no estate superior to his
own. The holders must have been allowed to place poor settlers upon
their estates, whose rents and services, in labour and kind, would be
important to their own subsistence. Of course in bócland no limitation
could be thought of; it was the absolute, inheritable property of the
purchaser, and he could in general dispose of it as freely as if it were
alod itself. But there seems no reason to doubt that much the same
course was adopted in both descriptions of estate; the folcland being
held beyond question for term of life, at every period of which our
history takes cognizance, whatever may have been the case at first. A
portion called the inland, or _dominium_, _demesne_, was reserved for
the lord’s homestead, house and farms, and the dwellings of his serfs,
esnes, læts, and other unfree and poor dependents. This was cultivated
for him by their industry, and he repaid their services by protection,
food, clothing, and small perquisites, all of which now pass under the
general name of wages[559]. On the upland and in the forests, sometimes
his own, sometimes subject only to his rights of common, they tended his
sheep, oxen and steeds at the fold, or his swine in the mast, lying out
during the appointed season of the year[560], or within the circuit of
his own inclosures they exercised such simple manufactures as the
necessities of the household required. The spinner and weaver, the
glove- or shoemaker, the smith and carpenter, were all parts of the
family. The butter and cheese, bread and bacon, were made at home; the
beer was brewed and the honey collected by the household. The remainder
of the land the owner leased on various conditions to men who had no
land; demanding in return for that commodity, indispensable in a country
which has not yet learnt to manufacture, rents paid in kind, in labour,
and even in money. This labour-rent, yet called _robot_ in Slavonic
countries, as well as the other dues, naturally varied in various
districts, partly with the importance of land[561], to the cultivator,
and the value of its produce to the owner. And at last political motives
may have had some weight, when the number and condition of a man’s
dependents might affect his own influence and position in the state: but
in general we shall be justified in saying that land was very valuable,
and the conditions on which it was to be obtained harsh and
onerous[562]. Such land, whether in large or in small portions, whether
leased on long or short terms, large or small rents, was called by the
common name of Lǽn, or loan[563]. It was considered to be lent; and
where the lǽn was on folcland, it is obvious that no certain time could
be assigned, and that the after-tenant could have only a tenancy at
will. In any case it was reasonable that misconduct in the holder, which
would have entailed upon him the forfeiture of his own real property,
should not be permitted to interfere with the rights of the reversioner:
lǽnland therefore could not be taken from the owner, for the crime of
the tenant. In the year 900 a certain Helmstán was guilty of theft, and
the sheriff seized all his chattels to the king: and Ordláf entered upon
the land, “because it was his lǽn that Helmstán sat on: that he could
not forfeit[564].” A similar principle prevailed in grants for lives,
especially where ecclesiastical corporations were the grantors and
reversioners; and which, though to a certain extent they conveyed
estates of bócland, gave, strictly speaking, lǽn or beneficiary
tenures[565]. But as the clergy were not always quite sure of meeting
with fair treatment, we find them not unfrequently introducing into
their instruments a provision that no forfeiture shall be valid against
their rights; this, from the great strictness with which the provisions
of a book or charter were always construed, and in general from the fear
of violating what had been confirmed by the signature of the cross and
the threat of eternal punishment, may have had some effect. In such
cases it may be presumed that the guilt of the grantee entirely
cancelled the grant; the remaining lives, if any, losing the advantage
which they derived through the grantee; forfeiture really taking effect,
but for the benefit of the grantor, not the civil power[566]. The tenant
of lǽnland, who by his services acquired the good will of the lord,
might hope to have his tenure improved, if not into an absolute
possession of bócland, yet into one for his own or more lives. In a
translation of St. Augustine of Hippo’s Soliloquia, attributed like so
many other things to Ælfred of Wessex, there occurs this passage[567]:
-----
Footnote 559:
Wages of course need not comprise money, or be the result of a compact
between free parties. We pay a slave wages, though no _penny fee_. It
is a different question whether it is advisable that labourers should
be slaves: the Anglosaxons had their peculiar views on that subject,
which we are not to discuss now.
Footnote 560:
“Alio quoque tempore, in adolescentia sua, dum adhuc esset in populari
vita, quando in montanis iuxta fluvium, quod dicitur Leder, cum aliis
pastoribus, pecora domini sui pascebat,” etc. Anon. Cuðberht, cap. 8.
(Beda, Op. Min. ii. 262.) “Contigit eum remotis in montibus
commissorum sibi pecorum agere custodiam.” Beda, Cuðb. c. 4. Op. Min.
ii. 55. The Hungarian Salas on the Pusta is much the same thing, at
the present day.
Footnote 561:
The “Rectitudines Singularum Personarum” inform us that they were very
different in different places, which necessarily would be the case. We
can imagine that a butsecarl or fisherman of Kent was not so anxious
to have a holding as a peasant in Gloucestershire.
Footnote 562:
Even in the eighth century Ini found it necessary to enact, that if a
man took land on condition of gafol or produce-rent, and his lord
endeavoured to raise his rent also to service, he need not abide by
the bargain, unless the lord would build him a house: and he was, in
such a case, not to lose the crop he had prepared. Ini, § 67. Thorpe,
i. 146.
Footnote 563:
The transitory possessions of this life were often so described, in
reference to the Almighty: “ða ǽhta ðe him God álǽned hæfð.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 699. A lǽn for life, even though guarded by a very detailed
bóc or charter, is distinctly called _beneficium_ by the grantee,
Æðelbald of Wessex. Cod. Dipl. No. 1058.
Footnote 564:
Cod. Dipl. No. 328.
Footnote 565:
Thus Ealhfrið bishop of Winchester (871-877) making a grant for lives
to duke Cúðred, properly calls it a lǽn: “Ealferð ⁊ ða higan habbað
gelǽned,” etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 1062. They reserved ecclesiastical, but
no secular dues.
Footnote 566:
Oswald’s grants generally contain a special clause to that effect: see
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 494, 495, 506, 507, 509, 511, 529, 531, 538, 540, 552.
Footnote 567:
MS. Cott. Vitel. A. xv. fol. 2. “Ac ǽlcne man lyst, siððan he ǽnig
cotlif on his hláfordes lǽne mid his fultume getimbred hæfð, ðæt he
hine móte hwílum ðǽron gerestan, ⁊ huntigan, ⁊ fuglian ⁊ fiscan, ⁊ his
on gehwylicwísan tó ðǽre lǽnan tilian, ǽgðer ge on sǽ ge on lande, oð
oð ðone fyrst ðe he bócland ⁊ éce yrfe þurh his hláfordes miltse
ge-earnige.” Whether land so put out was called earningland, I will
not affirm; but at the close of a grant for three lives I find this
memorandum: “Two of the lives have fallen in; then Eádwulf took it,
and granted it to whomsover he would as earningland.” Cod. Dipl. No.
679. Cotlif seems in other passages to denote small estates not
necessarily on lǽn. The Saxon Chronicle, an. 963, for example uses
that term of the lands which Æðelwold gave to Ely, after purchasing
them of the king. This it is clear he could not have done, had they
been on any person’s lǽn. Were they not perhaps settlements of
unlicensed squatters who had built their cottages on the king’s waste
and deserted lands—the old Mark—in the isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire?
But again the Chronicle, an. 1001, speaks of the hám or vill at
Waltham, _and many other cotlifs_.
-----
“But it pleaseth every man, when he hath built himself some cottage upon
his lord’s lǽn, with his assistance, for a while to take up his rest
thereon, and hunt, and fowl and fish, and in divers ways provide for
himself upon the lǽn, both by sea and land, until the time when by his
lord’s compassion he can earn a bócland and eternal inheritance.”
And instances occur in more formal documents. In 977, Oswald, Archbishop
of York and Bishop of Worcester, made a grant of three hides at
Teddington, for three lives, to Eádríc his thane, with reversion to
Worcester: “Now there are three hides of this land which Archbishop
Oswald booketh to Eádríc his thane, both near town and from town, even
as he before held them as lǽnland[568].”
-----
Footnote 568:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 617, 651.
-----
In another grant of the same prelate, between 972-992, made to his
_client_ Ælfsige, of a dwelling in Worcester city, for three lives, he
adds, “Also we write [or book] to him the croft appurtenant to that
tenement, which lies to the east of Wulfsige’s croft; that he may hold
it in as large measure, for bócland, as he before held it for
lǽnland[569].”
-----
Footnote 569:
Ibid. No. 679.
-----
In 977, the same convent at Worcester booked three hides for three lives
to the monk Wynsige, even as his father had held them[570]; and in
978-992, they gave to Goding the priest, also for three lives, the
tenement which he himself had without the city gate[571]. In both these
cases lǽn appears to have been converted into estate for successive
lives.
-----
Footnote 570:
Ibid. No. 616.
Footnote 571:
Ibid. No. 683.
-----
Where there was lǽn, there could properly be no book, because the
possession of the charter itself was _prima facie_ evidence (indeed
nearly conclusive evidence) in favour of the holder. Hence, where from
any circumstance the books were withheld, the tenant had only a lǽn:
this was the case with Helmstán’s estates mentioned above: he had
deposited his charters with Ordláf as a security on an occasion when
this duke helped him to make oath to some property. On Helmstán’s
felony, Ordláf seized the land to himself, and the document from which
we learn this is obviously his appeal to Ælfred’s son and successor,
against an attempt to disturb Helmstán’s original title, under a
judgment given by Ælfred. Nor was it unusual for books to be thus
retained as securities, by which the tenant having only a lǽn could be
evicted, if not at pleasure, at least by legal process[572]. And the
same remarks apply to a very common mode of disposing of estates, where
the clergy were grantees. Either to avoid litigation with justly
exasperated heirs, or to escape from the commands of various synods, the
clergy used to take deeds of gift from living tenants, impounding the
books of course, and leaving the life-interest only to the owner. Such
an estate in technical Latin was named _praestaria_; but it was
obviously a lǽn, and was generally charged with recognitory
payments[573].
-----
Footnote 572:
See the case of the estate at Cowling, in the trial between Queen
Eádgyfu and Goda. Cod. Dipl. No. 499.
Footnote 573:
Examples of this are found in Cod. Dipl. Nos. 429, 754, 1351, 1354, §
6.
-----
It may not be uninteresting, before I close this chapter, to give some
examples of the gafol or rent paid upon lands whether held for lives, or
as, more strictly, lǽnland. They are extremely valuable from the insight
they give into the details of social life, and the daily habits of our
forefathers.
Twenty hides of land at Sempringham were leased by Peterborough to
Wulfred for two lives, on condition of his getting its freedom, and that
of Sleaford (both in Lincolnshire): upon this estate the following
yearly rent was reserved. First, to the monastery: two tons of bright
ale, two oxen, fit for slaughter, two _mittan_ or measures of Welsh ale,
and six hundred loaves. Secondly to the abbot’s private estate: one
horse, thirty shillings of silver or half a pound, one night’s _pastus_,
fifteen _mittan_ of bright and five of Welsh ale, fifteen _sesters_ of
mild ale[574].
-----
Footnote 574:
Cod. Dipl. No. 267. an. 852. The mitta and other measures are unknown.
However the sester of corn was one horse-load (Hen. Hunt. lib. vi. an.
1044); _quære_, What he could carry, or what he could draw? In the
middle of the eleventh century, the sester of honey was thirty-two
ounces. Cod. Dipl. No. 950.
-----
A little earlier, Oswulf, a duke in Kent, devised lands to Christchurch
Canterbury, which he charged with annual doles to the poor upon his
anniversary. Forty hides at Stanhampstead were to find one hundred and
twenty loaves of wheat, thirty loaves of fine wheat[575], one fat ox and
four sheep, two flitches of bacon, five geese, ten hens, and ten pounds
of cheese. If it fell on a fast-day, however, there was to be (instead
of the meat) a _wey_ of cheese, and fish, butter, eggs _ad libitum_.
Moreover, thirty ambers of good Welsh ale, on the footing of fifteen
_mittan_, and one _mitta_ of honey (perhaps to make into a drink) or two
of wine. From his land at Burnan were to issue one thousand loaves, and
one thousand raised loaves or cakes; and the monks themselves were to
find one hundred and twenty more of the latter[576].
Footnote 575:
They are called _clean_. These probably were made of flour passed
oftener through the boulter. The common loaf had no doubt still much
bran in it, and answers to our _seconds_. But it is probable that
bread was generally made of rye.
Footnote 576:
Cod. Dipl. No. 226. an. 805-831. The sufl-loaf which I have translated
_raised_, is I presume derived from the word _sufflare_, and was
probably carefully leavened. We unhappily have not the Anglosaxon
receipt for beer; but I presume the text implies that fifteen
_mittan_, whatever they were, of malt were to go to the amber.
Oswulf’s character for splendid liberality will induce us to believe
that he meant the monks to have an _Audit_ ale of their own, as well
as our worthy Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge.
-----
Werhard gave two juga or geoc of land to Canterbury. The rent of one at
Lambahám was forty _pensas_ (weys) of cheese, or an equivalent in lambs
and wool; the other, at Northwood, rendered one hundred and twenty
measures, which the English call ambers, of salt[577].
-----
Footnote 577:
Cod. Dipl. No. 220. an. 832.
-----
Lufe, in 832, charged the inheritors and assigns of her land at
Mundlinghám, with the following yearly payment to Canterbury, for ever;
that is to say: Sixty ambers of malt, one hundred and fifty loaves,
fifty white loaves, one hundred and twenty alms-loaves, one ox, one hog
and four wethers, two weys of bacon and cheese, one mitta of honey, ten
geese and twenty hens[578].
-----
Footnote 578:
Ibid. No. 231.
-----
In 835, Abba, a reeve in Kent, charged his heirs with a yearly payment
to Folkstone, of fifty ambers of malt, six ambers of groats (gruta?),
three weys of bacon and cheese, four hundred loaves, one ox, and six
sheep, besides an allowance or stipend in money to the priests[579]. And
Heregyð, his wife, farther burthened her land at Challock with payments
to Canterbury, amounting to: thirty ambers of ale, three hundred loaves,
fifty of them white, one wey of bacon and cheese, one old ox, four
wethers, and one hog, or six wethers, six geese and ten hens, one sester
of honey, one of butter, and one of salt; and if her anniversary should
fall in winter, she added thirty wax-lights[580].
-----
Footnote 579:
Ibid. No. 235.
Footnote 580:
Cod. Dipl. No. 235.
-----
In 902, Bishop Denewulf leased fifteen hides of church-land at Eblesburn
to his relative Beornwulf for forty-five shillings a year, with liberty
to Beornwulf’s children to continue the lease. One shilling (sixty of
which went to the pound) is so very small a rent for ten acres, that we
must either suppose the land to have been unusually bad, or Beornwulf’s
connection with the bishop much in his favour[581]. He was also to aid
in cyricbót, and pay the cyric-sceat. About the same time Denewulf
leased forty hides at Alresford to one Ælfred, at the old rent of three
pounds per annum, or four shillings and a half per hide. He was however
also to pay _church-shot_, the amount of which is not stated, and to do
_church-shot-work_, and find men to the bishop’s reaping and
hunting[582].
-----
Footnote 581:
Ibid. No. 1079.
Footnote 582:
Ibid. No. 1086. In both cases the rent is called gafol.
-----
Between 901-909, king Eádweard booked twenty hides of land to Bishop
Denewulf. The payments reserved have been already mentioned: instead of
going to the king as gafol or rent, they were to be expended in an
anniversary feast on founder’s day. I have already stated that this may
be the old charge on folcland: it was a grant from the monks to the
bishop, probably negotiated by Eádweard. All parties were satisfied: the
monks probably got from the land as much as they could expect from any
other tenant, or what, if folcland, they would themselves have had to
pay; the bishop got the land into his own hands, to dispose of at his
pleasure, and the king was rewarded for intervention with all the
benefits to be derived on his anniversary from the prayers of the
grateful fathers at Winchester.
At the close of the ninth century, Werfrið bishop of Worcester claimed
land under the following circumstances. Milred a previous bishop had
granted an estate in Sopbury, on condition that it was to be always held
by a clergyman, and never by a layman, and that if no clergyman could be
found in the grantee’s family, it should revert to the see. By degrees
the family of the grantee established themselves in the possession, but
without performing the condition. At length Werfrið impleaded their
chief Eádnóð, who admitted the wrong and promised to find a clergyman.
The family however all refused to enter into holy orders. Eádnóð then
obtained the intercession of Æðelred duke of Mercia, the lady Æðelflǽd,
and Æðelnóð duke of Somerset; and by their persuasion, Werfrið (in
defiance of his predecessor’s charter) sold the land to Eádnóð for forty
mancuses, reserving a yearly rent of fifteen shillings, and a vestment
(or perhaps some kind of hanging) to be delivered at the episcopal manor
of Tetbury[583].
-----
Footnote 583:
Cod. Dipl. No. 327.
-----
Ealdwulf bishop of Worcester leased forty acres of land and a fishery
for three lives to Leofenað, on condition that they delivered yearly
fifteen salmon, and those good ones too, during the bishop’s residence
in Worcester, on Ashwednesday[584].
-----
Footnote 584:
Ibid. No. 695. I have rendered “forme fæstenes dæg” as if it were
_Caput jejunii_.
-----
Eádríc _gafeled_ (gafelian), i. e. paid yearly rent or gafol for two
hides with half a pound, or thirty shillings, and a _gare_, a word I do
not understand[585].
-----
Footnote 585:
Ibid. No. 699.
-----
In 835, the Abbess Cyneware gave land to Hunberht, a duke, on condition
that he paid a _gablum_, gafol or rent of three hundred shillings in
lead yearly to Christchurch Canterbury[586].
-----
Footnote 586:
Ibid. No. 1043.
-----
The ceorlas or dependent freemen who were settled upon the land of
Hurstbourn in the days of Ælfred, had the following rents to pay; many
of these are labour rents, many arise out of the land itself, viz. are
part of the produce.
From each hide, at the autumnal equinox, forty pence. Further they were
to pay, six church-mittan of ale, and three sesters or horseloads of
white wheat. Out of their own time they were to plough three acres, and
sow them with their own seed, to house the produce, to pay three pounds
of gafol-barley, to mow half an acre of gafolmead and stack the hay, to
split four foðer orloads of gafolwood and stack it, to make sixteen rods
of gafol-hedging[587]. At Easter they were further to pay two ewes and
lambs, two young sheep being held equivalent to one old one: these they
were to wash and shear out of their own time. Lastly, every week they
were to do any work which might be required of them, except during the
three weeks, at Christmas, Easter and the Gangdays[588].
-----
Footnote 587:
Gafolbære, gafolmǽd, gafolwidu, gafoltúning. The Saxons knew well
enough that all these things were _rent_; and all land put out upon
rent of any kind was gafolland, gafolcund or _gavelkind_ land.
Footnote 588:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1077.
-----
The following customs and payments are recorded in various manors: some
of the words I cannot translate. “In Dyddanham there are thirty hides;
nine of these are inland (demesne), twenty-one are let[589]. In Stræt
are twelve hides, twenty-seven yards of gafolland; and on the Severn
there are thirty cytweras[590]. In Middleton are five hides, fourteen
yards of gafolland, fourteen cytweras on the Severn, and two hæcweras on
the Way. At Kingston there are five hides, thirteen yards of gafolland,
and one hide above the ditch which is now also gafolland, and that
without the ham[591], is still in part inland, in part let out on rent
to the ship-wealas[592]: to Kingston belong twenty-one cytweras on the
Severn, and twelve on the Way. In Bishopstún are three hides, and
fifteen cytweras on the Way: in Lancawet are three hides, two hæcweras
on the Way, and two cytweras.
“Throughout that land each yardland pays twelve pence, and four
alms-pence: at every weir within the thirty hides, every second fish
belongs to the landlord, besides every uncommon fish worth having,
sturgeon or porpoise, herring or sea-fish; and no one may sell any fish
for money when the lord is on the land, until he have had notice of the
same. In Dyddenham the services are very heavy. The geneát must work, on
the land or off the land, as he is commanded, and ride and carry, lead
load and drive drove, and do many things beside. The gebúr must do his
rights; he must plough half an acre for week-work, and himself pay the
seed in good condition into the lord’s barn for _church-shot_, at all
events from his own barn: towards _werbold_[593], forty large trees[594]
or one load of rods; or eight _geocu_ build[595], three _ebban_ close:
of field enclosure fifteen rods, or let him ditch fifteen; and let him
ditch one rod of burg-enclosure; reap an acre and a half, mow half an
acre; work at other works ever according to their nature. Let him pay
sixpence after Easter, half a sester of honey at Lammas, six sesters of
malt at Martinmas, one clew of good net yarn. In the same land it is
customary that he who hath seven swine shall give three, and so forth
always the tenth, and nevertheless pay for common of masting, if mast
there be[596].”
-----
Footnote 589:
_Geset land_ I have rendered by set out or let; as land is afterwards
said to be set out to rent, tó gafole gesett.
Footnote 590:
The cytweras and hæcweras were weirs or places for taking fish, but I
cannot distinguish their nature. The names would induce us to think
the former were shaped like a modern eel-trap, the latter were formed
with a slat or hatch.
Footnote 591:
An enclosure on the water. See Cod. Dipl. iii. p. xxvii.
Footnote 592:
Welsh navigators.
Footnote 593:
Werbold, the construction of the weir or place for catching fish.
Footnote 594:
Mǽra, of large wood in opposition to rods?
Footnote 595:
Let him build eight _yokes_ in the weir, and close three _ebban_. What
these geocu and ebban are, I cannot say.
Footnote 596:
Cod. Dipl. No. 461.
-----
Unquestionably these are heavy dues, and much aggravated by the
circumstances of the estate or yardland being but small, the tenant born
free, and some of the services uncertain. I shall conclude this chapter
with a few lines translated from that most valuable document called
“Rectitudines singularum personarum[597];” as far as the cases of the
Geneát, Cotsetla and Gebúr are concerned[598]. First of the Geneát or
comrade.
“The Geneát-right is various, according to the custom of the land. In
some places he must pay landgafol, and a grass-swine yearly; ride and
carry, lead load; work and feed his lord[599]; reap and mow; hew
deer-hedge and hold _sæte_[600]; build and enclose the burh [or
mansion]; make new roads to the farm; pay church-shot and alms-fee; hold
headward and horseward; go on errand, far or near, whithersoever he is
directed.” This is comparatively free, and it is only to be regretted
that we do not know what amount of land in general could be obtained at
such a rent. We next come to the Cotsetlan, whom Ælfred in a passage
already cited states to be on lǽnland, and who are obviously poor
freemen, suffered to settle on the lord’s estate.
“The Cotsettler’s right is according to the custom. In some places he
must work for the lord, every Monday throughout the year; or three days
every week in harvest; he need pay no landgafol. He ought to have five
acres; more if it be the custom. And if it be less, it is all too
little, for his service is often called upon. He must pay his
hearth-penny on holy Thursday[601] as it behoves every freeman to do;
and he must acquit[602] his lord’s inland, on summons, at seaward and at
the king’s deer-hedge[603]; and at such things as are in his competence:
and let him pay his church-shot at Martinmas.
“The customs of the Gebúr are very various; in some places they are
heavy, but in some moderate. In some places it is usual that he shall do
two days week-work, whatever work may be commanded him, every week
throughout the year; and three days week-work in harvest, and three from
Candlemas to Easter. If he carries[604], he need not work himself as
long as his horse is out. He must pay at Michaelmas ten gafol-pence, and
at Martinmas twenty-three sesters of barley, and two hens[605]; at
Easter one young sheep or two pence; and he shall lie out from Martinmas
till Easter at the lord’s fold[606]; and from the time when the plough
is first put in till Martinmas, he shall plough one acre every week, and
make ready the seed in the lord’s barn: moreover three acres on request,
and two of grass-ploughing[607]. If he require more grass, let him earn
it on such conditions as he may. For his rent-ploughing [gafolyrð] he
shall plough three acres and sow them from his own barn; and pay his
hearth-penny; and two and two shall feed one stag-hound; and each gebúr
shall give six loaves to the inswán [that is, the swain or swineherd of
the demesne] when he drives his herds to the mast. In the same land
where these conditions prevail, the gebúr has a right, towards first
stocking his land, to receive two oxen, one cow and six sheep, and seven
acres in his yard of land, ready sown. After the first year let him do
all the customs which belong to him; and he is to be supplied with tools
for his work, and furniture for his house. When he dies, let his lord
look after what he leaves.
“This land-law prevails in some lands; but, as I have said, in some
places it is heavier, in others lighter; seeing that the customs of all
lands are not alike. In some places the gebúr must pay honey-gafol, in
some meat-gafol, in some ale-gafol. Let him that holds the shire take
heed to know always what is the old arrangement about the land, and what
the custom of the country!”
-----
Footnote 597:
Thorpe, i. 432.
Footnote 598:
The ancient Latin version calls them Villanus, Cotsetle and Gebúr.
Footnote 599:
Feormian, _firmare_; give so much as _pastus_.
Footnote 600:
Help to make park-paling, and perhaps keep watch for game.
-----
Footnote 601:
Ascension Day. Observe that the Cotsetla is distinctly asserted to be
_free_.
Footnote 602:
“Werige his hláfordes,” etc.; that is, perform for his lord, the duty
of coast-guard, and attending the king’s hunt: from which it follows
that, where there was no special exemption, these services could be
demanded of the lord: that is in case of folcland. The old Latin
translates _werian_ by _acquietare_, which I have adopted.
Footnote 603:
Either in repairing the park-paling, or in service during the hunt.
Footnote 604:
Aferian, auerian, _facit averagium_, _averiat_.
Footnote 605:
This seems an immense amount of barley, but the Saxon clearly reads as
I have translated. The old Latin version has, “Dare debet in festo
Sancti Michaelis x. den. de gablo, et Sancti Martini die xxiii et
sestarium ordei et ii gallinas.” Twenty-three pence at Martinmas is a
considerable sum; however as a sester of corn must even in ordinary
years have been worth quite that sum, it is more reasonable to follow
the Latin than the Saxon.
Footnote 606:
The fold was often distant from the homestead, and required careful
watching, especially during the dark winter months. Sheep alone were
not folded, but oxen, cows, and particularly mares: hryðrafald,
cúafald, stódfald. This system may be still seen in full force in
Hungary; and we may add that, in the article of horse and cattle
stealing, the Hungarian presents a very marked likeness to the
Anglosaxon. While reading these services, one can hardly get rid of
the notion that one is studying the description of a Hungarian
_Session_.
Footnote 607:
“Tres acras precum et duas de herbagio: þreo æceras tó béne ⁊ twá tó
gærsyðe.” If requested he shall do three acres; but only two if a
meadow is to be broken up? This is always much harder work than
ploughing on old arable. But it is difficult to reconcile this with
the next sentence. The Saxon says, “Gif he máran gærses beþyrfe,
_earnige_ ðæs swá him man þafige:” the Latin, “Si plus indigeat
herbagio, _arabit_ proinde sicut ei permittatur.” From the word
_arabit_, Thorpe suggests _erige_ instead of _earnige_. The two
readings are however consistent if we consider the expression gærsyðe
as having no connection with the gærs of the following sentence. I
suppose the meaning to be this: on extraordinary occasions, he might
be called upon by the lord to plough three acres instead of one, or in
old meadow-land, two acres. If now he himself should want more
grass-land than he already possessed, he might make a bargain with the
lord, and earn it by this labour with the plough. He was bound to give
one day’s ploughing every week from the commencement of the ploughing
season till the 11th of November: but on pressing emergency, and on
request of the lord, he must give three days (for an acre a day was
the just calculation) or in old meadow two. If his services at the
plough were still further required, he was to make a bargain with his
lord; and a common case is supposed, viz. that he required more
grass-land than he had. In this way all seems intelligible.
-----
I can only add the expression of my opinion, that a careful study of the
condition of the peasantry in the eastern parts of Europe will assist in
throwing much light upon these ancient social arrangements in this
country. Hard as in some respects the condition of the dependent freeman
appears, it must be borne in mind that the possession of land was
indispensably necessary to life, unless he was to become an absolute
serf. In a country that has little more manufacture than the simple
necessities of individual households require, no wealth of raw material
and consequently little commerce,—where households rejoice in a sort of
self-supporting, self-sufficient autonomy, and the means of internal
communication are imperfect,—land and its produce are the only wealth;
land is the only means whereby to live. But the Saxon peasant knew his
position: it was a hard one, but he bore it: he worked early and late,
but he worked cheerfully, and amidst all his toils there is no evidence
of his ever having shot at his landlord from behind a stone wall or a
hedge.